Latinos do not have a huge presence or long history in our nation, and though I often found other people with a similar background hard to come by, I was always told I fit right into the Canadian fabric woven of countless different threads.

Nostalgia for the Red Ensign unfortunately often pervades toxic alt-right circles. Rather than offer the respect the banner deserves as a historic symbol of what our nation once was, it has become a symbol of the desire to return to a colonial dominion lacking a distinct identity that is more true to ourselves and the deep history of this nation, more complex than a domineering Union Jack could ever hope to symbolize.

I will proudly fly the maple leaf forever high, as a flag as much my own as ours all, with its story honouring the past, present, and future, where long we have braved the long winter nights and humid summer days to make a home for us all, prosperous and beautiful. Thank you Canada, I’ve never had to think twice about who I am or where I came from. You told me from the beginning I am right where I need to be.

The debate looks at the balance between economic growth, environmental sustainability, and constitutional obligations to consult and respect Indigenous communities. Ultimately, this debate examines what it means to build a just and sustainable Canada.

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

On Saturday September 13th I sat nervously alone on Toronto's Line 2. As the subway rolled closer and closer to Christie station, I nervously fidgeted with my Canadian flag that I had brought along - a gift from my abuelita, the first of my family to arrive in Canada, a country she helped raise me to be proud of. I looked around wondering if I might see someone else attending and observed an older man with who I assumed was his young daughter, both adorning anonymous masks with maple leaves on it. I began to feel unwell that a man would bring someone so young to a place full of so much hate, so I chose to assume they were on the counter side, I unfortunately later discovered I was wrong.

Slide to the left.

When I hiked the short distance to the park, I was slapped with something that shook me for the entire day: I was dressed like the protestors. Wearing my summit series jersey and Canadian flag on my back, I didn’t blend in with the counter side at all. In fact, as I wandered around, I felt more and more alienated amongst socialist and outright communist booths and flyers. I had assumed there would be a more neutral presence of people like myself, moderates or even just regular Canadians looking to oppose racist dribble from soaking into an important public discourse. I was the sole Canadian flag amongst a sea of Palestinian flags and keffiyehs - not that that isn’t an important discussion as well, but I found it extremely out of place at a rally meant to defend Canadian values, at least as the sole flag

Slide to the right.

There’s hardly much to be said here, beyond the amusing fact that they felt insulted at being called racist or fascists when I saw one young man wearing a shirt making fun of the fact that Tim Hortons has Indian employees, which is supposed to be some sort of wicked sign of the times I guess, and was constantly being complimented or photographed by fellow protestors, and as a brown man who works a minimum wage I have no idea how they can make the claim I am welcome among them. As for being fascist sympathizers, chanting “No more money to Ukraine” earns you the right to be labelled as such.

Bring it back now y’all.

Ultimately the Pits and subsequent march to Dundas Square was an hours long shouting match, an ego trip on both sides to feel good about themselves and go home without contributing to meaningful solutions to the important discussion of immigration reform, a conversation which NEEDS to happen for the good of both Canadians and those seeking to become so, but must happen in the absence of racist rhetoric which pretends that anyone who isn’t a white “old stock” Canadian cannot contribute equally to our society. Canada is a country respected for its political stability, and I found myself in the middle of a dark look at what a future without that would be like. We must love our country and neighbours, if rational and thoughtful discussion does not prevail, we only stand to lose ourselves amidst the chaos, with nothing recognizable to be pulled out of the rubble.

This is not to excuse or necessarily equate both sides as I definitely felt more comfortable on one side than the other, however I also believe that we cannot defeat right wing extremism with left wing moral grandstanding, and I think we are at far greater risk at losing moderates or the young and impressionable to the propaganda of the right which is specifically tailored to appeal to them. We all must embrace and reconquer our symbols and identities from these extremists who seek to drag us back into the dark. We must be proud yet honest, compassionate yet reasonable, but above all grateful to our country and all it has provided us. We are so lucky to live as we do, do not let the left or right tell you otherwise. Our goal must always be the advancement of our privilege for all.

The Canadian Future Party is Canada’s newest federal political party, and its most foremost pro-democracy party. It boasts evidence-based policy, dedicated to preserving peace, order and good government. If this sounds like a Canada you want to build and preserve, please consider joining!

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

The Monarchy in Canada is not a subject often up for debate. Largely due to the vast minority of Canadians that bother caring about it at all - both monarchists and anti-monarchists number in the relative few, with it rarely if ever being an issue outside of Quebec, “surprisingly” the hotbed of anti-monarchist sentiment. Unlike some of our fellows in the commonwealth, Canada has never even flirted with the idea of abolishing our head of state. I have always looked forward to the day where I might make the case that it is overdue.

Quick! Ask yourself who the Governor General is. Now stop, did you have to ask yourself what a Governor General is? (Fellow Canadian political junkies, you don’t count), chances are you’re not alone. While I couldn’t find a poll from the last ten years to back up my claim, even if you know what I’m talking about, try to count how many people you know that can answer the first two questions. It was when I made my second ever short film in college, featuring a fictional Governor General as one of the main characters, I found out there were exactly zero people in not only my year but the senior year of the program that had a clue what that was, and my film left everyone rather confused. With this experience being a common one, have we ever stopped to ask ourselves why we spend tens of millions of dollars preserving an institution that few even bother knowing about?

In case you didn’t know, the Governor General is our symbolic acting head of state when the monarch themself is not present in the nation (which is exceedingly rare), and they hold the ceremonial power to officially call elections, swear in the PM and Cabinet, etc. In other words, a very expensive rubber stamp. Now enough on the Governor General (I’m sure this is plenty more coverage than they’re used to anyways) you likely clicked on this article for the people you have heard of, like His Royal Highness King Charles III. The man chosen by the Christian God to lord over us all for as long as he may live. While I’m sure you can gather my thoughts on such dated nonsense, I'm not here to discuss the personal side of it, as while many casual anti-monarchist sentiments, in my experience, stem from a personal dislike of his majesty or the royal family as a whole, I maintain mine is a practical one. Canadians have long outlived being royal subjects. You can pick from 1926 (King-Byng), 1947 (Canadian citizenship established), or even 1982 (New constitution), but Canada and Canadians have long been meaningfully independent from the Crown and mother Britain. There is but one string left to cut. Why bother cutting it? You may ask. Because I find it to be an outdated piece in our system’s puzzle, no longer core to the Canadian identity, nothing more than the faraway symbol our politicians and new citizens pledge their undying loyalty to. A symbol Canadian by technicality, rarely by practice, a symbol of ultimate British superiority over the French and Indigenous peoples, and a symbol no longer reflective of a multicultural modern nation, but a dominion it once was and will never return to, equally proud of its three founding peoples, though it has outgrown them thus.

It is often said the monarchy is the very essence of what it means to be Canadian, and while historically so, I don’t find that to be true in the modern day. Canada ended a race-based system of immigration in the 60s, and with that came a flood of new people seeking better opportunities, including my own family, with no connection to the crown whatsoever. These people were not united by a faraway monarch but by a welcoming culture of hard work and mutual respect. I am not a monarchist because I was raised in a country where I was different, but when surrounded by endless different others I found myself belonging. That affirmation is the essence of our culture, for hundreds of years Canada has welcomed the world and made us so much more than simply one thing or another. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, not simply a subject of the British royal family, a symbol of systemic superiority over all peoples who have called this land their home.

It is often said the monarchy is the very essence of what it means to be Canadian, and while historically so, I don’t find that to be true in the modern day. Canada ended a race-based system of immigration in the 60s, and with that came a flood of new people seeking better opportunities, including my own family, with no connection to the crown whatsoever. These people were not united by a faraway monarch but by a welcoming culture of hard work and mutual respect. I am not a monarchist because I was raised in a country where I was different, but when surrounded by endless different others I found myself belonging. That affirmation is the essence of our culture, for hundreds of years Canada has welcomed the world and made us so much more than simply one thing or another. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, not simply a subject of the British royal family, a symbol of systemic superiority over all peoples who have called this land their home.

Thank you to Nathan for agreeing to present the Case For the Monarchy, a democracy is a dialogue, so make sure you check out his article!

P.S A common rebuttal to the idea of abandoning the monarchy is that of a replacement. A symbolic head of state is a common thing to be found around the world, and though I’m sure Canada would survive without one, for an easier transition one could absolutely be on the table. After all, a replacement could be used to solve the main problems I cited. One that is generally inexpensive, relevant, and above all, Canadian. A British born and raised King, who conducts a majority of his affairs and business in a foreign country is not the ultimate representation of Canada. It is time for us to truly define that ourselves. Thus, I turn it to you dear reader, what would you propose we change, if you support change at all? Be sure to let us know your thoughts!

P.P.S This issue is not remotely relevant to the world we’re living in right now, and serious consideration on something as relatively unimportant as this should be treated as a luxury to be enjoyed during times of relative stability. I would also like to clarify I believe this is a debate that requires a thorough national conversation and be ultimately decided by referendum. Who knows, maybe I’m wrong and there are more Mary May Simon fans out there than I could’ve guessed!

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

From the earliest beginnings of Canadian history, the Monarchy has been a core part of Canadian identity and Tradition. Whether it be Loyalists and indigenous groups (like the Haudenosaunee led by Joseph Brant) migrating to Canada in the aftermath of the American Revolution due to their loyalty to the crown, to Canadians fighting in both World Wars for King and Canada or even the crowds of Canadians who watched the King arrive in Ottawa this past summer when he defended Canadian sovereignty. Canada has changed dramatically from its creation to now, but there has been one constant throughout that: the Monarchy. The Monarchy should not be abolished as it offers three main benefits. First, it offers an advantage in stability compared to republics like the USA. Second, the monarchy offers a third way between republicanism and authoritarianism (communism). Ultimately, it provides a connection to the past as we move into the future, preserving our identity and tradition. Further, there is also no clear or good plan to replace the monarchy.

One of the core benefits of the Monarchy is the stability that it offers. Of the 193 countries in the world, only 24 are constitutional monarchies. Ten of them are ranked as the most democratic states in the world, including the three most democratic states: Norway, New Zealand and Sweden. Canada is likewise one of the most democratic states in the world, thanks in part to our Westminster-style government that is led by our non-partisan Monarch. The neutrality of our monarch is crucial as the Monarchy holds significant reserve power that it can use, including:

The ability to dissolve parliament (which leads to an election).

The ability to give (or refuse) royal assent to laws, allowing them (or not) to go into effect.

The ability to dismiss a prime minister.

The ability to prorogue parliament.

Foremost constitutional scholars, including Eugene Forsey and Peter Hogg, agree that without the monarch and their reserve powers, our democracy and its systems would not be able to function effectively. They act as safeguards to protect Canadian democracy from overreach, opportunism or outright authoritarianism by our elected government. A partisan head of state couldn’t effectively wield these reserve powers due to their own partisan political biases or perceived biases. The Monarchy also acts to moderate and temper our politics as they reduce our politicians from being celebrities and godlike figures that they are in the USA to being mild middle-level management who work on behalf of and report to the non-partisan Monarch. This has been a crucial part of the success of our Westminster system.

The Monarchy and the Westminster system offer Canada and many of our other commonwealth brethren a third way forward politically. American-style republicanism assumes that the majority is always right absolutely. In a perfect world, this might be true, but we live in an imperfect world, as evident in the recent US election or in Germany, where Hitler was elected by the people, both of which show majority made a questionable choice. Authoritarianism assumes that the leaders of the nation are always correct, which again isn’t true. The Monarchy and the Westminster system aren’t perfect, but they offer us the best foot forward in an imperfect world, as the monarch and the parliament (elected by the people) act as counterbalances against each other to ensure that our nation has stable, effective government. As the Canadian academic John Farthing notes, “there is no such pride and presumption in the ideal of kingdom. It knows nothing of absolute perfection.” “It seeks only to retain what it knows to be good and to attain to whatever is better. And meantime to perform the duties of the moment in which past and future are fused.”. Therein lies the greatest strength of the Monarchy, as they serve to make Canada better above all else by combining 1000 years of accumulated experience and using it to help guide Canada into the future unknown.

Philosopher Edmund Burke notes that our system of monarchy and the Westminster system is a contract between the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. This is true of the Canadian Monarchy, as, in addition to its other benefits, it serves to anchor us in our past, our traditions, and the very essence of Canada’s existence. Our entire reason for existing is a rejection of America, republicanism and American ideals of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Our forefathers fought hard to build Canada, striving for a better future and resisting American influence, with the Monarchy, which has witnessed all the greatest achievements of Canada, remaining a testament and connection to those past accomplishments. If we try to remove the monarchy, we slide further into abandoning what makes Canada, Canada, bringing us closer to Americanism. We have had many chances to remove the monarchy throughout our history. In 1812, we could have welcomed the USA, but we didn’t. English, French and Indigenous people came together and fought for the Monarchy and for Canada. In the 1980s, in the lead-up to the repatriation of the new constitution, politicians, from MPs to Premiers, whether they were socialists and social democrats of the NDP, Liberals and Red Tories, or Blue Tories of the PC Party, were committed to keeping the Monarchy.

To those who say the Monarchy doesn’t care about Canada or is uninterested in us, they couldn’t be more wrong. The Monarchy has a long record of being active in Canada if one looks into it. Prince Arthur (son of Queen Victoria) volunteered and fought with Canadians for Canada during the Fenian Raids. He later would go on to be Governor General, steadying us through the start of the First World War. Queen Elizabeth II, when on a tour to the USA, was asked by Ronald Regan where she was travelling next, to which the Queen responded, “I’m going home… to Canada”. Princess Anne lives in Canada, and her Grandsons are Canadian. Most importantly, during the threats of US annexation this past year, King Charles III unequivocally supported Canada. Whether it be attending the British Navy Fleet Review wearing a Canadian uniform and medals, or asking to be referred to as the King of Canada during a trip to Italy, clashing with the British Prime Minister over his invitation of Trump to Great Britain, and most importantly, he opened Canadian parliament as an unequivocal show of support. There are hundreds more examples that can be drawn upon to show that the Monarchs aren’t absentees who have little interest in Canada. It is clear that they love and are willing to be involved in Canada.

The Monarchy also has one further benefit in that replacing it would be costly, politically catastrophic, difficult and would lead to Canada being torn apart as a nation. Constitutional scholars agree that removing the Monarchy would require the government to open the constitution. For any constitutional amendment to pass, it would require the consent of all 10 premiers and their governments, as well as a ⅔ majority in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is a near political impossibility, as when Prime Minister Mulroney attempted to amend the constitution, it failed miserably, leading to the Quebec referendums, the rise in western populist conservatism and his party being reduced to two seats. Canada is much more polarised today, and any attempt to open the constitution would be nothing short of catastrophic. Further, the Republican movement has no concrete or good plan to replace the Monarchy. If we just turn the Governor General into a president, how are they chosen? If the Government appoints them or elects them through parliament, or if the people elect them, it results in a partisan Head of State. Thus, as noted earlier, this completely undermines our system of government, which ensures our democracy by having a non-partisan, unappointable Head of State with reserve powers. If the Prime Minister becomes the president, we now have all the same problems that plague America and are causing its slide into authoritarianism and demagoguery. There’s also the cost of replacing the Monarchy, which will be billions, and we will still have to pay for a president, Presidential elections, a president's residence and staff. Which saves us no money compared to our current Monarchy.

In summary, the Monarchy is a core part of Canada as a country and our political system that has brought us so much success. The reason the Monarchy should remain is that it offers us stability and safeguards our democracy, providing a middle ground between political extremes. It is a core part of Canadian identity and tradition, keeping us rooted in both as we move forward, and it has strong connections to Canada. Further, replacing the Monarchy would have catastrophic consequences, would be expensive, and there is no defined way forward; thus, the Monarchy must remain.

Subscribe now

Share

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

This debate is part of CFP Youth’s summer series of debates.

Claim: Canada should keep the monarchy.

Speaking in favour: Nathan

Speaking in opposition: Will

Moderator: Nathan is the affirmative and Will is the negative. So, time for the affirmative construction. Nathan,

Nathan: Thank you. So, the monarchy is perhaps the most traditional and important Canadian institution. Firstly, it provides reserve powers that provide checks and balances that act against parliament if it goes off the rails. Something that many other countries don't have. Especially America, as we've seen in the last few years, while they have their constitution to protect their rights, it can be overturned, overruled by judges, and changed. Well, the monarchy offers significant stability in that regard. Furthermore, it's a uniquely Canadian institution. While the king is technically a Brit, the crown itself is Canadian, which suggests that the monarchy isn't just a relic of the British past, but it's evolved to be Canadian, representing all Canadians. Furthermore, the top 20 of the most democratic and free countries in the world, half of them are monarchies, despite monarchies representing only 22% of recognized countries. Eugene Forsey, one of Canada's most recognized and reputable constitutional lawyers and also an original NDP and CCF member, argued that monarchy is perhaps the most important part of the Canadian system along with the Westminster electoral system as it offers the best of both worlds and accounts for human flaws while American republicanism requires near perfection for it to work perfectly. Well, a kingdom knows not perfection, but it only seeks to retain what it knows to be good and attain whatever is better. So, it can protect what tradition we have, but it also will help us evolve when needed.

Moderator: So, cross first cross-examination by negative. Will, go ahead.

Will: Hello. Thank you. If the monarchy is so essential to Canadian democracy, why do other parliamentary democracies like Germany and Ireland function fine without one?

Nathan: They aren't perfect by any means. Germany is an example I know well. My dad's German and his family's heavily involved in politics and the German president is a complicated position and I would argue it's inferior to that of a monarchy or in our case governor general. The main thing is that it's a partisan position which causes some controversy. While they're supposed to be nonpartisan in their roles, many German presidents will wage into partisan politics. Richard von Weizsäcker did it a few times and much to Germany's detriment, I would argue. And while they function similarly in that they have the president as the constitutional head of state. The monarchy just offers continuous stability like Queen Elizabeth was the head of state for 70 years, offering continuous stability going from one prime minister to the next prime minister. Also making sure that our prime ministers aren't seen as a celebrity figure as they're usually the mild-mannered boring leader who is governing at the behest of the monarch. Whereas in Germany or other republics with a president head of state, they aren't that because they're a partisan politician.

Will: I see. That was a very interesting response. So, thank you for that. Who does the monarchy provide stability to? When the governor general refused to call to recall parliament during the Trudeau resignation crisis, was that stability or was that a constitutional power vacuum?

Subscribe now

Nathan: I would say that's completely stability and the governor general was completely justified. Arguably dissolving parliament at that point would have caused way more instability in the face of the Trump administration coming into power and the potential landslide defeat of the liberals in a pretty shocking manner. Trudeau was well in his right to ask the governor general to probe parliament and the governor general was in her rights to accept. While there was no government at the time, it offered stability and it allowed an election to be held which was afterwards when the liberals had elected a new leader.

Moderator: We will now carry on to the next stage which is the negative construction.

Will: Hello all. I'm Will, co-lead of the CFP Youth in the GTA. There's a lot on the agenda today, so I'm going to get straight to the point. The British monarchy, in my view, is a relic, a symbolic appendage we keep around out of some vague historical sentimentality. It's like that dusty old Union Jack in Grandma's Attic. But in 2025, Canada is long overdue for serious constitutional upgrades. It's time to stop pretending we are a semi- detached British colony and fully embrace who we are: an independent, pluralistic and secular nation, a product of the modern world and a nation that deserves a head of state who actually lives here. Canadians say we want reconciliation, diversity, and transparency. Yet, we cling to an unelected institution that embodies colonialism, secrecy, and hereditary privilege. A system where leadership is decided not by merit or ideals, but because daddy said, "It's my turn to play with the boat." We don't need to burn our system down to change it. We need to evolve it. The parliamentary system works, so we should keep it. We should keep the checks and balances, but swap out the symbolic royal baggage for an elected head of state within Canada. The message we would send to ourselves and the world is that Canada is not a junior partner to anyone. I believe it's time for this nation to grow up, cut the cord, and finally act like the sovereign nation we already are.

Moderator: We'll carry on to the cross- examination of the negative by the affirmative.

Nathan: All right, I appreciate your argument, Will. I understand where you're coming from, but I'll start by saying that Canada has been an independent country since, pretty much, 1936 with the Statue of Westminster. While we still have a British crown, it functionally is a Canadian crown. And we are no longer a vassal of Britain. We have been an independent nation doing our own will and our own bidding for over a generation. And monarchy isn't a relic of the past. Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, all some of the most democratic, free, and modern societies in the world. And yet they still use the monarchy. Furthermore, fundamentally the monarchy is a cornerstone of Canadian tradition. If we start eliminating our past, we just become another arm of America. The monarchy acts as a bull work against the homogenizing American influence over Canada.

Will: I agree with you that tradition matters. But which traditions do we draw the line at? Canada got rid of the red ensign. We stopped using God Save the Queen. We've moved past the residential school system. I do not believe that the royal family of all things is the hill to die on. It's possible to remember our history without letting outdated institutions govern us.

Nathan: Again, I would go back to it's not an outdated system. Yes, it's hereditary, but look at all the hereditary systems in Canada. Our prime minister was the son of a previous prime minister. In Ontario, the president of the Treasury Board is the daughter of a prime minister. Hereditary systems will happen in Canada and in the world no matter what. The monarchy allows us a loyalty system, almost, that keeps Canadians, the Canadian elite loyal to Canada rather than swaying further and further to the US. And I don't think that solely because it's a hereditary system, that warrants dismissing it.

Will: I do not believe Canadians would accept a hereditary head of state in the style of the royal family if it was anything other than tradition. If we proposed a hereditary ceremonial position in say the United States, France or any other country, nobody in Canada would support that. No one in Canada would accept the idea of a hereditary head of state if it was anyone other than a British royal.

Moderator: Okay, thank you very much. And that is the end of the cross- examination. So now we will go to the negative rebuttal. Go right ahead.

Nathan: So, the main problem with getting rid of the monarchy is changing the Constitution. That will nothing short of cause a massive collapse, if not the end of Canada. Not only that, but we lack a clear idea of how to replace the monarchy. Some people want an elected head of state that just replaces the governor general. Others have suggested just turning the prime ministership into a presidency and erase the position of governor general. Who elects the president? Is it a people vote like the states or do they do it the German style where the parliament votes or the senate in Germany's case? Then on top of that you have to get every single province on board. You need a majority vote in the House of Commons and the Senate and it just becomes a massive disaster. If we look at Mulroney’s Charlottetown accords from the ‘80s before all of our times, I know, it was an unmitigated disaster. It influenced Quebec's massive push for separation and led to the rise of the bloq and it also caused a complete collapse of the PC party leading to it being replaced by the Conservative Party, thanks to Reform. And Canada's worse off. We're still feeling the negative effects of the Charlotte Town Accord on national unity, identity, and such. I don't think it's worth it for the near zero benefits of changing to a republic over the monarchy to put Canada through such a massive point of upheaval.

Moderator: We will do both the affirmative rebuttal and the affirmative rejoinder at the same time.

Will: I do not believe that Canada's Constitution is made of metaphorical sugar glass. It's a living document. And yes, addressing such an issue of replacing the royal family with an elected head of state, it would be a challenge. I fully agree with you on that. But we've amended it before. We have evolved our institutions before. We switched flags once upon a time. We signed the Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982. We gave indigenous peoples new legal recognition. And throughout all of this, our system did not collapse. It adapted because we are a mature democracy that develops. And that's what mature democracies do. I do not believe touching the old lamp is going to make the entire house fall down. And as is true with removing the monarchy; it doesn't mean rewriting everything from scratch. We would still have Parliament, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provinces and premiers. All of those things will remain intact. What changes is the symbolic head of state who in my eyes already has no real influence over our day-to-day democracy except costing us millions of dollars to uphold colonial baggage. I do not believe our constitution would be in a bonfire if we became a republic. In reality, we'd be changing one part of it that no longer reflects who we are or what we stand for. We already have the legal tools to do that. It would be hard. It would be a battle. But so is anything worth doing.

Moderator: Thank you very much both debaters and at this time we will move on to the audience question period. There's 12 minutes set aside for this but it may go longer or may go shorter depending on the number of questions we have. I'll first go to the audience and then if the audience doesn't have any questions I'll jump in or if either of the candidates has additional questions for their opponent, then they may do so at that time.

Question 1: So I have a question for both of you. Will, you reference that the alternative you're proposing to the monarchy would be an elected head of state? Do you see any problems with that? Because if a head of state was elected, could you imagine a situation in which the head of state didn't belong to the same party, or if the elected head of state was purely an independent position, just didn't align with the current prime minister and decided to prorogue parliament to stop something from happening or decided not to let the prime minister call an election or do similar anti-democratic measures? And Nathan, is there any feasible alternative to the monarchy in Canada?

Will: Sure, you have a point there. Everything has problems if you look hard enough. Ultimately speaking, that's just kind of how it works. However, I believe that the pros to an elected head of state far outweighs the cons in my eyes. Right now, the king of Canada is our head of state. King Charles III is a foreign monarch born into the job with zero connection to Canada's culture, politics, or people. His representative is a governor general appointed behind closed doors. In a constitutional republic, we would get a Canadian head of state chosen by Canadians, whether by parliament or by public vote, someone accountable, someone local, and someone who actually lives here and reflects our values, not the values of Britain's aristocratic leftovers. In a republic, even a ceremonial president gains legitimacy through process. That's how you strengthen a democracy, by ensuring no one holds power over the public without consent. And in terms of checks and balances, I believe in abolishing the Senate and replacing it with a direct democracy system in the same way that Switzerland has, which means in the off chance that said elected head of state goes rogue and starts doing things we do not like, it would mean the citizens would be able to hold a referendum and remove said head of state. Currently, we are wasting millions of dollars on royal tours, governor general salaries and ceremonial red tape. These are heritage gimmicks that serve no practical function. And becoming a republic lets us redesign our roles with transparency, frugality, and actual civic value.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. Nathan, would you like to respond as well?

Nathan: Thank you. So to answer your question, I don't think there's any better system to replace the monarchy. Will talks a lot about how it would save us so much money to switch from a monarchy to a republic. I disagree. Changing the Constitution alone will cost millions. And after that, we'll still have to pay a salary for the head of state. We'll have to pay for elections. We'll still have to pay for their staff. We'll have to pay for their residence. All the same things as a governor general gets and more. The monarchy is not based on logic and it's not perfect, but it's the accumulated experience of the entirety of Canadian history. While some argue they are a part of our colonial past, and yes, that's true, but it doesn't mean they're still colonial. The French Republic was perhaps one of the worst colonial empires in the world, and they're a democracy and a republic and more. Belgium while a monarchy was horrible. It can go either way for colonial paths, but in Canada's case, the monarchy guarantees our human freedoms, security, and happiness as they do not claim to know the unknowable, and they offer checks and balances and complete and utter neutrality that no elected head of state will ever have.

Moderator: Will, you've repeatedly gone and toured the world with inspiration on what you would like to use to replace our current system. And you've referenced the Americans and the French multiple times. Given our history and justifiable cultural perpetual weariness of the American influence over Canadian culture, government, society at every level, how would you respond to people who question removal of the of the monarchy based on the fact that this is an Americanizing influence and it gives the Americans more potential control directly over our nation and our sovereignty?

Will: That is a great question and ultimately speaking, I think that joining the ranks of modern republics actually has the exact opposite effect. It would make Canada look like what it already is, a grown-up nation. I do not believe Canada should be the sidekick of America. Absolutely not. I do not want that. I want Canada to be Canadian. However, I do not think we should play sidekick with the United Kingdom either. Other democracies look at Canada and scratch their head. We are a G7 country and we have a king. You know, Barbados figured it out. Ireland got out of the British crown and didn't look back. Scotland increasingly wants to leave the United Kingdom due to the UK, as a whole, sitting there and telling Scotland that they can't make laws that represent the people of their country. And yes, Canada is not a part of the UK. Ultimately speaking, the head of state position at the current moment is ceremonial. But it wasn't always like that. At one point, the head of state controlled our laws. At one point, the royals were allowed to control the laws we make. You know, if we're spending tens of millions a year on the governor general, royal tours, security ceremonies, and the maintenance of this whole aristocratic machine, then what are we exactly getting in return? Because when you look at the big moments, the moral crises, the times where real leadership or intervention was needed, the monarchy was absent. And in fact, it was complacent. Where was the crown when children were being taken from their homes and forced into residential schools? Where was the supposed moral authority that is also nonpartisan when indigenous languages were criminalized, when entire communities were displaced, when the horrors of those institutions were well documented and ignored? If this institution is supposed to be a check on government abuse or a guardian of Canadian values, it's a check that's never cashed. Not then, not now. It was silent during those abuses and it's silent today while files sit untouched during political deadlock. And again, we pay for that. We pay for a symbol that doesn't speak up. We pay for a crown that doesn't protect the vulnerable. We're still paying for a figurehead that stands in for a foreign monarch who barely acknowledges us unless there's a PR event or a vacation. And heck, in some PR events, they don't even acknowledge us. Like, they don't acknowledge us in the battles of World War II. I do not believe the monarchy is worth the cost. I do not believe there isn't a return on investment. And I believe if we are going to spend millions on our system of government, we should spend it on a system that works, that answers to Canadians, and one that shows up when it counts. It should be a system that represents Canadian values and Canadian culture and Canadians only.

Moderator: Just for the factual record, Canada is definitely not the only G7 member that has a king. The UK also has a king and Japan has an emperor. So that's at least three out of seven.

Nathan: Okay, so this is for Will. For the record, I just have to just go and say there are a few incorrect statements. No offense. I don't mean this in any bad way, but since 1867 to now, the monarchy has had no official influence over Canada in terms of lawmaking. Not in any way whatsoever. And they also have spoken up in times of crisis. In the past few months during Trump's annexation threats, King Charles has been extremely vocal in that he supports us. During the British fleet review, he showed up in Canadian medals and Canadian uniform. During his tour to Italy, he asked to be announced as the king of Canada. So he clearly supports us. Historically, Queen Elizabeth was extremely vocal for helping Canadians and protecting us in times of need. She saw it as her home as much as Britain. During the Second World War, George V 6 spoke at length on many, many occasions about the quality and the contributions of Canada during the war.

Moderator: Nathan, I have a question for you. If we were to keep the monarchy, do you like it as it currently is? What are things that you would like to see changed about the way we do our monarchy? And the same question for Will. If we kept the monarchy, what's something you find good in the way we currently do it?

Nathan: So, I actually I don't think the monarchy is perfect by any stretch and I think there are a lot of ways that we can improve it to make Canada better. Institutions have to evolve while keeping some foot in tradition. The monarchy, the one key way to do it is, this is a bit crackpot on my part, but to create a cadet monarchy in Canada. Princess Anne lives in Canada nearly full-time. Her children or grandchildren are Canadians. So I would propose we just replace the position of Governor General and the Crown of Canada with Queen Anne and separating it from Britain and making it truly Canadian. Likewise, I'd just like to see it be more active in Canada, even if it wouldn't split off. I'd like to see Charles, other members of the royal family be more present and active in Canada. Historically from like the 50s to the mid 80s they were extremely present in Canada. The Duke of Edinburgh would be here several times a year and Queen Elizabeth came several times and they really saw it as their home as much as Britain. So, I’d just like to see now the monarchy try and be present and relevant in Canada again like it was historically.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. And Will?

Will: Okay, objectively speaking, the monarchy does have traditional merit. It's a part of our history, and I do get why some people find meaning in that. I'm not here to deny that it holds symbolic value for many in Canada. For me personally, that's not enough. I believe our democracy needs to change from the ground up, and that means moving beyond systems we didn't choose, like the king of Canada. Even if monarchies worked perfectly, I still would not support them because I think Canada deserves something better. But yeah, if there's anything that the monarchy does well, it would be the sentimentality.

Moderator: Okay. That's the end of the Q&A section. We'll carry on to the closing statements. We'll start with the affirmative and end with the negative.

Nathan: All right. The monarchy has been a traditional Canadian institution from the time it began. Canadians have always been largely supportive of it. Recent polls have shown support surge back into the 60% in everywhere except Quebec and Alberta, but it represents all Canadians. It is a nonpartisan institution that guarantees our freedoms and it keeps us a foot in tradition while also looking to the future. It is highly modern with many other countries being democracies and it differentiates us from the states. The more and more we erase traditional Canadian institutions, we delve further and further into the American culture taking us over. Something that's been predicted as far back as the 50s with philosophers like George Grant noting that the more control America has over our culture, the less and less Canadian democracy and independence will work. So I believe the monarchy is key to preventing that and they guarantee our freedom and democracy.

Moderator: Thank you, Nathan.

Will: The fact remains: up until very recently, Republicanism was growing in Canada. Back in 2017, the NDP elected a leader who was fully on board with Republicanism. And the NDP itself has been on board with Republicanism for quite some time. And to make something clear about something I said before, I do not want the monarchy to have more influence. My issue, my argument isn't that Charles doesn't intervene enough or that the crown should have flexed more muscle. It's that they shouldn't have any role in our system. I think Canada deserves to make its own choices. When King Charles speaks out on global issues like climate change or against Trumpism, I understand why some people celebrate it, but I think that's the problem. We're supposed to be an independent country. We're not a satellite or orbiting a planet. And yes, Charles did make headlines criticizing Trump. But I view that as political theater. It's the same empty grand standing as Reagan yelling at Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It made for a great sound bite, but ultimately speaking, it didn't change anything. The Soviet Union was going downhill anyways, and it would have been torn down anyways. Canada doesn't need a monarch giving us permission to be decent. And we certainly do not need symbolic lectures from someone who isn't accountable to our public. If Charles says something that lines up with Canadian values, great. But why do we need a crown to validate that? Why should our head of state be weighing in on global affairs when they're not even a real part of our political system? I'll leave you with this. What I'm arguing for is no royal involvement. I want a Canada that answers to Canadians. I want a Canada that doesn't require British approval, symbolic or otherwise, to take moral or political action. I believe that instead of trying to make an outdated system better, we should finally spread our wings and outgrow said system.

Moderator: Okay in that case, thank you to all the participants and to the audience for joining us. For anyone who might be listening to this recording afterwards, that's the end of our monarchy debate for the youth of the Canadian Future Party. Have a wonderful day everyone. Thank you for everything that you've done and hopefully this made you think a little bit about the topic that we had at hand.

Subscribe now

Share

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

If you’ve taken a look at the CFP Youth social media, there’s a good chance you’ve seen us take a shot at the PPC. As we boast to be Canada’s explicitly moderate and evidence-based party, rejecting the wave of culture war nonsense that has engulfed the West, the PPC embraces all that we do not as Canada’s greatest vehicle for populist drivel. I joined the CFP to push back against this rising tide where the voice of reason is being drowned out by the siren's song.

Populism, when well-intentioned, is an invaluable tool to bring the voice of the underrepresented to halls of power. Unfortunately, it's more often utilized with ill intentions that work to give power to the most silver tongued of snake oil salesmen. Lately this has combined with a general population more disconnected from politics than ever, and only tune in for the drama, which makes for great content but unhealthy politics.

While peaking around 5% of the vote, the PPC has not had any meaningful success in their own right, just a continuation of the Bernier grift by picking whatever the most controversial issue of a given election cycle is and focusing on it like a laser to maximize attention for themselves. However, this isn’t to say they haven’t had success in a wider sense, though they would despise the thought of it, Pierre Poilievre’s CPC is an attempt at creating a palatable PPC. And it's working. Poilievre has seized that populist lightning rod, channeling rage baiting, oversimplifications and “anti-wokeness” sensationalism into electoral success, even if it didn’t land him the top job. But let's be honest, if it weren’t for a certain President, we could potentially have seen one of the biggest electoral victories in our history.

They say “the customer is always right”. If you’ve ever worked retail or fast food like I have, I'm sure you’re aware of how astoundingly false that statement is. From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense, you want your customer to feel valued, you want them to buy more, you want them to like you. This is the same methodology used by populists, where the way to an uninterested voter's heart is patronizing them like you would a spoiled child. They can never be wrong, their interests must come above all others, and YOU are the only one capable of delivering them what they need. You have to admit it's a good strategy, who doesn’t want to feel heard and valued? The problem is it's easy to get people riled up especially when you know the problem is far from easily solved, and you can benefit from this anger for a long, long time. That's not how we build a better system and a better world.

Populism is seeking power for power's sake, where politicians become a product to be sold, and the consumer/voter demands the most entertaining to be in charge, because who wants politics to be boring? I do. I believe our very way of life depends on it, and should we allow the populists to take control so that they might bash our system to bits for their own ego we will be getting what we deserve. Let's make politics boring again. You can start by joining us here at the CFP.

Subscribe now

Share

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

This debate is part of CFP Youth’s summer series of debates.

Claim: Canada should expand its oil production.

Speaking in favour: Sam

Speaking in opposition: Will

Moderator: Would you like to state which side you’re taking in this debate?

Will: Certainly. I'm taking the stance that Canada should not be expanding oil production.

Sam: And I am taking the stance that Canada should be expanding its oil production.

Moderator: We’ll start with opening statements. Sam, feel free to begin.

Sam: I'd like to say first and foremost, Canada should only be expanding its oil production with oil being nationalized and that extraction profit going completely back to the government and the people. So we can have as much oversight as possible, making sure that it's all done properly and again, the benefit coming back to us—the Canadian people—but not only us. Because oil, while of course it has its reputation for being part of what's destroying our beautiful planet, is also the system we run on every single day. You cannot get by without it at the moment, and as unfortunate as that is that's the way the world, a lot of the Western world, works. We have a lot of countries that still rely primarily on coal, which is a much dirtier, much more polluting, and deeply unhealthy source compared to oil. So Canada, should it expand its oil production, can also work to increase its soft power by helping countries get off coal. Converting to an oil economy would be to the benefit of many countries still on coal, because oil begins that first step to a cleaner country, a cleaner ecosystem, and eventually a greener ecosystem. One day hopefully the whole world can move off of oil. But we need to start with moving off of coal. Likewise, Canada has the chance to continue fueling democracies and continue fueling the West, which unfortunately has to rely too heavily on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, with obviously disgusting inhumane practices and profit that goes entirely to the upper crust of those nations. Whereas Canadian profits can go back into the Canadian economy, into the Canadian people, where we can use it to fund green infrastructure, green projects, helping to convert and prepare a province like Alberta—help prepare their economy and industry to move on to something green once oil hopefully won't be as in demand. And as well, promoting at the same time that Canadian unity and hopefully quell any further Alberta separation, reminding them that we care—not just for the oil and natural resources, but that we're going to help and make sure Alberta doesn't have to worry about what comes after and the industry that'll come after. So to summarize: nationalized Canadian oil strictly for the benefit of Canadians, not private corporations.

Moderator: Thanks, Sam. Will, do you want to step in with a cross-examination?

Will: Sam, you've said that Canadian oil should be expanded because countries are still burning coal, which—yes—that is accurate. But do we have firm evidence that foreign coal-burning economies would actively use Canadian oil to replace coal as a fuel? If not, wouldn't the likelier outcome be that Canadian oil would just be adding to a global supply rather than actually displacing dirtier fuels like coal?

Sam: So, Will, I would say: why not? Yes, oil is certainly pricier, and this is why I've stressed the need for it to be nationalized oil and something that the government has control over how it's used. And as well, I bring this back to what I mentioned about soft power and how Canada can use this strategically. We can offer oil cheaper, we can offer oil again with the explicit purpose of saying: we are trying to help get you onto a cleaner, more efficient source. We can offer it to you at cheaper rates. Again, this would be a hypothetical scenario I am talking about, of course, but I would argue I don't see why not. We are seeing countries like China take advantage—especially now—of U.S. aid pullback and expanding its soft power into regions that need assistance, and that tends to be infrastructure. But I think there is room for Canada to step in and make ourselves look pretty good out there.

Will: I want to touch on this point of nationalization, which for the record, I actually do agree that if we create more oil in this country, it should be nationalized, because that’s what would actually pump money into our economy. If we nationalize oil production and ramp up oil production to meet international demand, Canada is taking a financial risk in doing so. With nationalization comes the downside that Canadian taxpayers would be footing the bill for an increasingly volatile global commodity. In your eyes, why should we bet public money on oil when we know the long-term trend is ultimately going to shift away from fossil fuels?

Sam: I would say that oil isn't going to go away for a very long time. There's so much of the world that still relies on it—we are seeing a downward trend in some areas, like for automobiles and more commercial use, but oil isn’t going away for things like transportation and bigger projects that can't quite—or at least don’t have an immediate path to—something greener at the moment. So oil is not drying up. And as you mentioned, agreeing on nationalization and how that profit would immediately be pumped back—that’s important. We're unfortunately seeing a rejection of green energy now, especially coming out of the United States, and a lot of dangerously environmental rhetoric about how they plan to go back. But like I said, Canada has the chance to step up. And while it may seem hypocritical, to think that more oil production is the solution to a quicker green future, I would argue that that inflow of cash we can get while it's still valuable, and while oil is still being used—and while oil is unfortunately getting a boost from certain big economies—I think we need to make use of that while we can and work as fast as we can to get the most out of it.

Will: All good points. I do agree with you that although the trend is ultimately going to move away from fossil fuels, you are right that it's not going to happen for quite some time. But wouldn’t a nationalized oil sector in a country with the third biggest oil reserves on the planet just reinforce our planet's overreliance on exporting oil, rather than investing more in clean energy innovation?

Sam: Canada certainly needs to be the leader. And again, this is an ideal world where we’re taking a lot of those profits and converting them into green energy—investing in green energy—and showing the world, hopefully becoming a hub and an example for how we can move on to that next step of energy. So it would purely be—as much of a “short-term gain" as possible—just trying to maximize the profits so that we can use them explicitly for green energy and investing in green companies. And hopefully, that’s something we can make an example of and be a bit of a moral higher ground, showing the world that we don’t need to continue relying on oil, and we can take that next step. It’s all about having the right plan and the right government willing to prioritize that sort of thing over simply profit.

Will: Sam, in your previous statement, you brought up the United States and the Trump administration’s very anti-environmental stance. Just out of Washington recently, it was declared that by 2030, Americans can expect to see rolling blackouts because of increasing investment in artificial intelligence technologies. You know, stuff like ChatGPT and generative AI software requires a lot of energy. In the context of preventing rolling blackouts, do you believe that investing in Canadian oil could help Canada avoid that problem, seeing as Mark Carney seems interested in investing in AI technologies as it becomes more integrated into our everyday lives?

Sam: This is actually a great point, and I’m starting to think—why the heck didn’t I write that down? I think that could be very critical. I am aware that AI takes a lot of energy to keep up, and especially as it's only going to grow, it’s going to require more. I did touch on this earlier, but the fact that oil is not going away for a long time—oil is probably never going away, period. Obviously, we hope to get off of it as a primary source of energy, and one day, in a much greener future, we’ll have plenty of wonderful alternatives to keep us going instead. But this is just another way oil can not only help Canadians but again keeping it around long term—it's an investment. It's something we can even hope to help the United States with. If that's something they're fearing, that's something Canadian production can help prevent—rolling blackouts. And again, getting more profit and getting our biggest trading partner to rely on us for something like that would give us some more cards to play with, and we've all seen in the last little while how helpful something like that might be. And again, taking as much profit as we can and using it to our advantage—and hopefully the world’s advantage—by expanding our green energy and helping the world get more green.

Moderator: We've gone over the three-minute cross-examination time, so I'm going to end that part here. I'd like to offer Will the chance to do an opening speech.

Will: Hello, distinguished listeners. I'm Will Adams. Tonight I want to discuss a straightforward idea: Canada should not expand its oil production. Now, if you listen to certain politicians, pundits, and industry lobbyists, they will insist that Canadian oil is somehow special—cleaner, more ethical, the “good kind” of oil, whatever that means. But here’s the reality. Ninety-seven percent of Alberta—the oil capital of Canada—97% of its oil comes from the tar sands, or the oil sands if you prefer the press release term. Producing oil from oil sands is about as far from clean as you can get. According to the Alberta government’s own data, oil sand extraction is water-intensive, energy-intensive, and ecologically disastrous. It emits greenhouse gases. It poisons water. It decimates forests and disrupts ecosystems. And yes, it’s why the rest of the world calls it “dirty oil.” And yet, despite all of this, we are still being sold the idea that expanding oil production is somehow in our national interest. Why? Because short-term profits for a few big players—many of whom aren’t even Canadian—apparently matter more than the long-term survival of the planet’s climate and the very rich and diverse ecosystems that exist across this country. The oil industry pollutes the air we breathe, contaminates the water we drink, and fuels climate change. And what does climate change give us in return? More frequent and more intense natural disasters, like the devastating wildfires we recently saw in Fort McMurray, which displaced tens of thousands of Albertans. Personally, I do not think “drill baby drill” is responsible economic policy. In fact, it’s the opposite. Canada—and Alberta included—should be working to wind down fossil fuel production, not ramp it up. The future does not belong to oil. The future, as any revolution proves, belongs to innovation, sustainability, and resilience. Thank you.

Moderator: Thanks, Will. Sam, do you want to cross-examine him?

Sam: For sure. I’d like to start off by saying that I share what I sensed was disdain over the profit going to companies—especially ones that don’t even tend to be Canadian. I would agree that they lobby and use that as a great set of talking points to make it seem like it’s best that they’re the ones making money off of it. So I agree with you there. I know we agree on nationalizing—that needs to be the way it is. You stated that Canadian oil is not ethical. I understand the points that it’s not as clean and that these tend to be talking points of big groups and interest groups, but Canadian oil is more ethical because we pay our workers a good wage. We responsibly source and sell that oil in an open, free market. And again, I know we disagree on the companies, but the profit is not strictly going to a 1%, or a family, or a president—in some cases like Russia and Saudi Arabia. Do you think the benefits of cleaner oil coming from dirtier governments is on par with dirtier oil coming from a cleaner government like Canada? If that makes more sense.

Will: Thank you for the question. For the record, I come from a union family, and I want union jobs. I’m not against union jobs, and I’m very much aware that even with how dirty oil production is, when it’s produced in Canada, it provides a good, stable living for the people who work here. It provides good, union-paying jobs with benefits to the people who work in those places, which gives them a steady paycheck so they can support their families. When I say that oil production is unethical, that is absolutely not what I’m talking about. Just to add some context: what I’m talking about is the environmental impact. Although there have been marginal improvements in technology, that is realistically only slowing the decline. Even with carbon capture technology and efficiency upgrades, the net emissions from oil sands are still significantly higher than conventional oil from places like Russia and Saudi Arabia. A 2022 study from the Canadian Climate Institute found that even the most efficient oil sands projects still emit more than double the carbon of the average global barrel. Although technology is reducing intensity, we are still swimming upstream in terms of climate impact. That is the part that is ultimately unethical. Because although people like Danielle Smith will talk about carbon capture as though it’s a good method to completely sidestep green energy projects, carbon capture technology is relatively new, and we don’t actually know if it’ll work in the long term. I mean, trees exist too—trees are supposed to temporarily absorb CO₂ emissions. That’s how they breathe. However, I don’t remember where I read this, but if I’m not mistaken, there was a study done by the federal government that revealed that the trees in Canada are not sucking up the CO₂ they need to in order to diminish the effects of greenhouse gases. That is a problem—and ultimately speaking, that is what makes oil production in Canada unethical.

Sam: Thank you very much for your answer and clarification. My next question would be: you mentioned that Canada needs to be dwindling down its oil production. What would you propose to replace the extremely valuable oil profit that flows into the Canadian economy? As well, as you mentioned you're a union man—so there's a lot of jobs that might be lost there, and money that’ll be needed to help those people get by until they find new work or training. That tax money also becomes the funding we use to fight fires and things like that. So, what would you propose to replace what we lose by dwindling down our oil sector?

Will: Great question. And yes, oil is still in demand globally. Oil is still in demand globally, and yes, if you shut down the oil fields completely, you lose jobs.
You do lose those union paying jobs. But what happens if we put our economic chips on oil when other countries are slowly beginning to invest in battery tech, renewables, or green hydrogen? That risks Canada falling behind in the next energy race, much like how our engineering prowess was lost when Diefenbaker handled shutting down the Avro Arrow project in a very uncaring manner. I think, personally, that the national strategy in regards to energy should be about preparing this country for future competitiveness. We shouldn't just be maximizing what we can squeeze out of a dying legacy industry. From a fiscally responsible perspective, I think it is more responsible to build long-term energy infrastructure around uranium and hydrogen. That was actually a goal that Washington had under the previous administration with the Inflation Reduction Act, which of course President Trump got rid of on day one. But we realistically need to look into stuff like that. And I think Canada needs its own equivalent of that.

And that's really where we need to keep our focus, because innovation will always win in the end in the free market. The global market for renewables is only going to grow. And if Canada can invest money into it, then this can be the first time in a long while where the Canadian people have an innovation that brings billions of dollars to our economy and creates jobs for millions of people.

Moderator: Now if you want to, there's a 4-minute rebuttal period by Will.

Will: All right. Let's talk Alberta. Alberta had one of the largest per capita oil reserves in the world for decades. But despite record oil booms, Alberta struggled with budget deficits, underfunded healthcare, and they struggled above all else to diversify their economy. If oil is such a dependable wealth engine, why hasn't that delivered lasting prosperity for Alberta, assuming that oil production typically does that for the economies and is a net positive for the economy universally?

Sam: Well, I think this boils—this tends to boil down to two things. And one of it is politics and the fact that governments are not always the best to be trusted with balancing things out or using money in the best way they can, whether that be the cause of special interest or incompetence or partisanship, what have you. I would argue that that probably plays a big factor in it. As well as the fact that a lot of what the production tends to be is privately owned big companies, oil companies like as you mentioned earlier, most not even Canadian. And while of course we get some of that revenue back through taxes and other ways, it's not the same as a country like Qatar or Saudi Arabia, where the profit goes directly into the royal family's coffers to choose how they spend it. And they do tend to choose to spend that on luxury and looking good to the outside world. And they have a lot more control over it, which is exactly what I'm calling for—a responsible national, nationalized sector with competent federal government oversight with a clear goal of maximizing profit to invest in green energy. It could fluctuate with the fact that oil prices drop and rise a lot all the time in the natural flow of the economy. As well, we have one big partner—the United States. We're not connected to a lot of countries. I mean, we only share a land border with one. So it's harder for Canadian oil to get out there.

Will: Thank you. That was a very informative statement on your end, Sam. I think one thing we haven't touched on here is that, since I just realized, I'm going to touch on it now, Indigenous communities. Some Indigenous communities very publicly support oil extraction and building pipelines through their reserves for economic reasons. Others oppose it because they have concerns for the environment. If Canada were to nationalize and expand its oil, how do we reconcile that with Indigenous sovereignty and consent without violating charter rights, without violating treaty law? How do we address this without unconstitutional laws and measures such as Liberal Bill C5?

Sam: So that exact issue has also been a big talking point here in Ontario with the government saying they're just going to expand what they want and do what they want, even though they say they'll consult, we know what that really means, right? But I'd like to say it's got to be done in partnership and in cooperation—not just how it's usually like, “Oh, we'll give you a cut of the profits, it'll be fine,” like that kind of the usual talk. I think this is how I'd like to change the national conversation into being: yes, of course you're going to profit from this, and we're going to make sure that a lot of this money can help go into more programs and more ways to help end poverty on reserves, using a lot more of these resources. Just making sure that they get a cut of the profit is not enough. The federal government can and should use that profit to invest in those communities as well. And like I said, it's this goal of the nationalized sector to help create a booming green sector to go alongside it, and to hopefully help ease environmental concerns in that by saying: “Hey, this isn't business as usual.” We are doing this with the explicit goal of killing it, and so that we can have more money quicker to invest and grow quicker away from the sector. So, I think it's all about changing the conversation and continuing the partnership. And I'd like to clarify that I'm not advocating for any bills that toss away or steamroll over the rights that these communities have.

Will: You're absolutely correct that if we are going to be doing economic projects in Indigenous reserves, the money from pipelines in Indigenous reserves should go to their social programs and provide jobs to people on the reserves, so that way they aren't poverty-ridden. Most reserves in Canada still have boil water advisories. There is one issue with nationalization though that is never talked about in regard to this specific field. If Canada nationalizes and expands oil, the federal government takes on an enormous financial and reputational risk. And if oil crashes again, who's holding the bag? Is it the province that's politically dependent on oil, such as Alberta—which nationalization could effectively be seen as bailing out for not diversifying its economy—or is it Ottawa and by extension every Canadian taxpayer? If oil crashes, what is the plan B?

Sam: And then to answer your question: oil prices ebb and flow, and there are of course ups and downs, as I'm sure Alberta can tell you. But for oil to crash is more of an unprecedented consequence of larger events—like for example, COVID-19, where the world shut down, nobody's using gas. It's these huge events that are inescapable. And while the Canadian taxpayer might be left high and dry in that situation, it isn't necessarily guaranteed to last forever, because of course oil is back now that COVID has ended. But it's also not something that can be strictly avoided per se. It's the result of natural causes, I'd argue—like a major crash versus the normal ups and downs. So it's not something I would be too particularly concerned about, and I certainly hope we're not facing anything like that anytime soon. But the world is moving on from oil. But we rely so heavily on oil as it is. We can only do that slowly. So the complete crash or loss of oil is some ways away, at least from what we can see coming.

Will: I agree. And ultimately speaking, I want what's best for both the environment and for the Canadian economy. It is not a mutually exclusive thing like many Liberals or Conservatives may frame it as. You can do both. You can have a clean environment. You can tackle the fight against climate change. And you can have an economy that creates jobs and employs Canadians, including in national energy projects. In terms of Canada's agenda in regards to foreign policy, its climate change initiative has played a big part in our foreign policy. Justin Trudeau spent his entire term going to the UN meetings and the Paris Climate Accords meetings and stuff like that. And he would talk about—and listen to people talk about—how climate change is one of the biggest threats humankind has ever faced and how we need to do everything to remove it. Justin Trudeau notably expanded the Harper-era carbon tax. And as we all know, current Prime Minister Mark Carney repealed at least the consumer carbon tax. The reason I bring this up is because Canada has made a big part of its agenda—in the foreign and domestic policy space—about the fight against climate change. So with that being said, how do we justify as a country spending so much public money to expand one of the most carbon intensive sources of oil on the planet? You know, doesn't that completely undercut the logic of our policy? Or in this case would it be us pushing for a special pleading fallacy, hypocrisy? You know, discouraging emissions at home while profiting from them abroad. How do we balance that out without looking like we're special plating?

Sam: That's a great question. I don't think that it's been handled well. I don't think this changes our place in that fight at all, or as leaders of that fight, because calling for oil expansion needs to come with our allies. And those talks with our allies help ensure that there's going to be a market that is ready to hopefully take some of our oil as well, especially as opposed to Russia and other countries. But our allies understand that the world is changing, and it's a pretty scary, uncertain future at the moment, especially for democracies and the health of democracies. And Canada is lucky to be a democracy with such vast reserves and wealth in that sense. So it does take continued talk and continued discussion with our allies, but it is hypocritical, of course, on paper to be like, “We need to fight climate change” and expand oil. But we need to show not just with our word that we're going to use this money for green energy and green investment.

We do need to show action, and we do need to show that we mean what we say and that the money that they use to buy our oil hopefully is like, “Yes, you are still using this for a green future and for a green goal.” So it's showing that we're going to invest in green energy while continuing to say we believe in climate change. We believe that we know we need to fight it. It's not shying away from that responsibility or that war cry whatsoever.

Will: Thank you for your response. One thing I just realized—another thing I forgot to mention earlier when I was questioning you after your statement—was that extracting oil from the tar sands, which again is 96% of our oil, is notoriously expensive to not only extract but to refine in such a manner where it can actually be sold at all.If the Canadian government were to nationalize and expand it, how do we make ourselves a competitive force in the oil market? How do we compete with cheaper, lighter crude oil from the US, the Middle East, and maybe even offshore Africa? And I ask this because this is one part of the conversation that is often excluded from the discussion, and I think it's something that should be addressed when the topic of expanding oil production is brought up.

Sam: Thank you. That is a very good point to bring up and to mention as well, because I was aware that Canadian oil is more expensive to produce and refine. And I could be wrong, so if you know, please correct me if I am, but I believe a lot of the refinery is something that already does take place in the United States and not here in Canada, because they have the facilities to do so. So if I'm correct in saying that, this also has to come hand in hand with partnerships and with allies. It's about working together on this front, and it's about convincing them that it's worth it to help make Canadian oil cheaper and help make more Canadian oil.

Moderator: All right. We’ll move to the 12 minute question period. Does anyone have any questions?

Question 1: Okay. So, what Sam was referring to at the end was that a lot of our oil refining already occurs in the states and something that I don't really know wasn't directly talked about is that Canadian oil is very, very sour. Which is because of the high sulfur content, along with it coming out of the sands rather than being in a more oily state—being just more tar. This makes it harder to refine. It also means that the refineries are purpose-built for basically our oil or Venezuelan oil. And if it's not using Canadian or Venezuelan oil, that entire refinery is useless until it gets completely retooled to take the sweeter, easier-to-refine oil. I bring this all up because both of you acknowledged that were we to actually continue investing in fossil fuel production in Canada, we would need to nationalize it. From the perspective of why you are nationalizing it—there are a lot of reasons to nationalize or not nationalize an industry. One of them is domestic security of supply, which you don't achieve in Canada if you just nationalize the industry. You also have to reshore the oil refinement, which is many billions of dollars to try and do. So my question would be: for the person who wants to increase Canadian oil supply or production, how would you go about doing that in your proposal of nationalizing it? And then for the person who doesn't want to, how do you deal with the ethical dilemma of sourcing more of our dependency, more of the oil that we will need to have even as we phase out? There will always be demand for oil and petroleum-based products. For one, it's how we build our roads, along with basically all the plastics. So if we phase out oil and petroleum product production in Canada, how do you grapple with the human ethical costs that come with sourcing from less ethical sources? You commented briefly on it during the debate, but I'd like a little more about it.

Moderator: Sam, would you like to start?

Sam: Good points to talk about Canadian oil being a difficult one to refine. But the expansion and costs— I'm not as researched on this as well as I should be. I believe I mentioned this earlier, and I'm also not quite the mathematician, but before nationalization, the cost analysis would have to be very extensive, including: not only are we going to get lots of money to what I'd like to do, which is invest in green energy—but will that money even cover the cost of what it would take? So I would just say I personally don't know the answer to your question, and I'm sorry for that. But it is something I would want to see properly researched. So that's one thing I, of course, would want to see before anything else happens on this, which I'm sure everyone agrees on.

But as well, one thing I'd like to bring up—and I think it would be cool to see done: I was reading an article where some First Nations communities are turning former oil extraction sites into geothermal plants and making use of what is now barren and unused. So I would also hope to look into how we can be creative and make the most use of what we can now and beyond.

Will: Thank you for your question. I'd like to start off by saying that just because something is in demand, that doesn't make it strategic for our economy. There was demand for leaded gasoline once. There was demand for asbestos. There's still demand for coal, especially in places like the United States. But that doesn't mean we need to double down on it. In this case, it means we need to move forward.

If Canada is serious about being a global energy leader and a global economic force, then we need to invest where the world is going and where it will ultimately go—not where it is stuck. That means uranium, that means hydrogen, that means putting serious R&D into the concept of fusion energy. These are industries where Canada has the talent, the resources, and the global reputation to lead—assuming we have the courage to stand by our convictions and shift focus. Letting other countries take the lead while we cling to the past is economic stagnation. It's how Canada ended up giving up the invention of 5G when it was stolen from Huawei by Nortel. Canada needs to put its foot down and lead the charge.

We can't continue to make decisions just because the market is dragging us there after we've sat on our hands. The countries that dominate clean energy innovation today will set the rules for the global economy tomorrow. We should be leaders in that future. The truth is, oil demand exists now—but that's not going to last forever. Fossil fuels are finite. It's like a battery: it runs out. The investments we make today in clean, exportable, future-proof energy will benefit Canadians for generations and create a truly sustainable energy source—so we don’t have to worry about a second Cold War over oil.

Question 2: I understand this conversation has been heavily dominated by the energy aspect of petroleum and oil, but that's far from the only role petroleum plays in our society. I guarantee there are dozens of objects in front of each of us right now—many we’re wearing, many we rely on for health, emergency preparedness, and daily life. There are tens of thousands of technologies that rely on the adaptability of hydrocarbon and petroleum-based products.

To totally phase out petroleum production in this country would leave us extremely vulnerable to the whims of other countries that don’t. From a strategic reason —given petroleum’s many other roles in society—how would you respond to the idea of a total phase-out? Would you be willing to compromise—for example, by phasing it out only for energy use, but retaining capacity to manufacture essential petroleum-based products? Even renewables still depend on petrochemicals.

Will: Simple answer—yes. And that's a very good point about how oil has non-energy uses. If we're just talking about maintaining limited strategic production for mostly non-combustion purposes, I doubt anyone would be up in arms.

But usually, when oil is discussed, the talk is about scaling up high-emission production to fuel the global market under the pretense that it's somehow cleaner. That, in particular, is what I oppose.

Moderator: So in that way, you would agree with Sam that it’s kind of a fool’s errand to totally phase out domestic oil production?

Will: Yes. I believe in a case-by-case approach. I also believe that where possible, we should work to develop synthetic alternatives, if possible. Assuming that’s possible, we can innovate. One thing you can’t innovate your way out of, though, is the climate crisis—especially if your whole economic plan is to just dig more oil.

You're right that oil has other uses. I would agree with Sam that we can't get rid of oil entirely. It's used in hair products, plastic, asphalt, and as you said, all sorts of infrastructure. So yes—it's not entirely black and white.

Moderator: Do we want to go into our brief closing statements?

Sam: I'll be pretty brief. We can and should use oil to kill oil. And of course, by kill, I mean move into that green future where oil is no longer our primary energy source any longer. That’s what I’d like to see done—taking advantage of what we can while we can. Selling the stock high, as I like to put it.

As I’ve said, as long as it’s nationalized and handled responsibly by a well-meaning government—which can happen—that’s the future I would like to see for Canada. If it’s the most economically viable path to jumpstart our beautiful green era.

Thank you everyone for your time, for listening, and thank you to the moderator and to Will. It's been really wonderful to debate.

Will: I'd like to thank my debate opponent, Sam, for a good-faith and very balanced conversation. This is how democracy is supposed to work—we talk to each other, especially on the topics we disagree on.

Let me close by making something very simple: Canada needs to be honest with itself about the kind of country it wants to be. We like to say we punch above our weight on the world stage. We pride ourselves as a country on being a responsible global citizen. But it's hard to wear that label when we double down on one of the most environmentally destructive industries in the world.

Now, I know, as much as the next guy, we can't shut off the taps tomorrow—that’s not realistic. That’s at best idealistic. But we can stop pretending there’s no alternative. And as both Sam and I agree, we can stop handing billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

We can invest in clean energy jobs. We can build a future that’s actually sustainable—for both us, and more importantly, for the next generation of Canadians. Thank you.

Subscribe now

Share

]

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

This debate is part of CFP Youth’s summer series of debates.

Claim: We should remove controversial historical figures from public spaces because honoring them sends a message that their harmful actions are acceptable.

Speaking in favour: Sam

Speaking in opposition: Garret

Sam: The core of my argument is that statues are testaments to greatness. They are ideals we strive towards. They're of people who indisputably did great things, or at least that would be the ideal scenario or how we would regard them. And the problem is, if we can argue the merits of greatness—measuring the merits of greatness versus evil, or ends to justify the means—but ultimately, many of our founding fathers and controversial figures... the justification of the means was the bulldozing, eradication, elimination of Indigenous peoples of this country, and the mistreatment of other minorities in this country. And ultimately, that is something we are coming to remember them more for and learning more about. And it becomes, at least to me, a lot harder to move on with that legacy still standing tall and standing strong.

Garret: So to sum up your whole argument, it is: statues are used to glorify greatness in our society. So when we have statues for people who have complex or perhaps even evil—in what we would interpret as evil—actions that they have done that participated in their greatness, we're therefore also glorifying those evils. And not just evils in the past, but the ones that continue to persist into this day because of those past actions by those great people that we're glorifying in those statues.

I take issue with this because greatness does not necessarily imply goodness. And I don't think it ever has. I think for most of history greatness has not ever really implied goodness. Greatness has merely implied that consequential change has resulted because of the pivotal actions either attributed to this person or that occurred concurrently around this person and because of their responses to stuff that was occurring at the time.

And we should remember those things because they are our history. And one of the easiest ways to encourage civic participation in our history and a continual recognition of where we've come from and how far we have moved already is by confronting those and literally placing them—our history—on a pedestal. Because it is where we have come from, and we have lost a great deal in order to fight for what we already have. And I think it helps to push us to strive to be even better into the future.

So the affirmative would like us to believe that to strike from our history these spaces and these names from the rightly attributable actions that they took to create our nation, with all of its flaws and its imperfect adherence to its own ideals, we are removing the recognition that the world can be improved. You look at how bad things were when they came together and they created the country.

If you forget the context that they lived within and you forget to recognize them for the place they served in our history, then you're serving up a message to our future and current leaders that they will always be remembered only for their worst deeds. And that it doesn't matter whatever they do—there is no grace in history, and that there is no forgiveness for the wrongs that you have done or let persist because your limited action and agency was spent elsewhere on other problems, or that the failures of your term will be the only things worth remembering.
So thereby the failures of our country become the only things worth remembering.

I feel like there's a serious problem, because on the one hand, we are attempting to hide ourselves from our histories. And on the other hand, by doing so, we're actually glorifying their actions and—but only the evilest parts of them. And so we're almost doing a form of penitent Christianity that has no repentance.

So it's just constantly self-flagellation of our entire country. And so at that point, at what point do we even have a country anymore? Because there is no goodness to the country, and there is no central civic understanding throughout the populace that this is even a project worth fighting for at all. That any of the values we say we hold are even remotely justified, because we refuse to recognize them. We refuse to recognize where they came from, why we fought for them so hard, why it was such a struggle to get them put in place—even to the limited extent we already have them.

Yes, there's lots of people who continue to be oppressed by the systems that we have in place, but it should be celebrated that we are only as evil as we already are. Could be so much worse. We could be way, way better, but we need to recognize where we came from in order to figure out how to continue pushing ourselves into the future by learning from the lessons of the people who helped get us here.

And that includes the people who have complex, complicated histories, who took actions that actually harmed a tremendous amount of our people at the benefit—and exclusive benefit—of a tiny amount of them.

All of this complexity must be taken into account when we are thinking about and interacting with the symbols of our peoples. And the symbols in a public context—when they are statues—can be very powerful. And there are many ways to relate to them, but I don't think defacing them or hiding ourselves from them is going to get us into that better future that we all wish to live in.

Share

Subscribe now

Sam: Statues are not how we necessarily learn history. We learn history in school. We learn history through our education, first and foremost. And I'll give you the point that statues definitely are an easy way for you to come across it as you go about your day in a park or anything like that. But, that's also not the only way of getting across that messaging. Like here in Toronto, I see plenty of signs, memorials, things where you can learn, still, but it's not sending the same messaging.

Because that messaging—while I disagree that it sends the message to leaders now that they'll only be remembered for their greatest mistakes—because these aren't just any scandals. These were horrible atrocities committed against Canadians. You know, Canada now has its flaws, yes—but is a wonderful, fantastic place. It still sends the message to Indigenous Canadians, Chinese Canadians, other persecuted minorities, that your ancestors’ hardship—and especially in the case of Indigenous Canadians—that still plagues so many people to this day: all that hardship was worth it so that I can be benefiting now. And I think that that's a very cruel message to send amidst reconciliation efforts. And that it's just not the way we can learn now. It's not the way we can grow now.

We have the modern context of what these men did. History is not black and white. It's not a simple case of right and wrong, most of the time. And it's best learned—these complex subjects and these complex people—in an environment where there can be discussion, where there can be plenty of room for “let's balance, let's learn, let's see what they did,” as opposed to simply statues saying who they are, commemorating what they did without acknowledging what they also did.

Moderator: So would you allow a plaque on a statue, Sam, explaining what those people have done? Would that be acceptable? Garret, would you be fine with a plaque on a statue?

Sam: Yes, I think that would be acceptable—because again, as Garret said, I think that works too because it is an easy way for you to come across history as you go about. And if you take a second to read, then you do understand the context of why that statue is there, who that person is. You have a chance to make up your own thoughts about it and not necessarily read into it as a: “Wow, that guy must be so great. He has a statue,” right?

Garret: In short, absolutely. I would actually prefer that every statue have context, at the very least, a plaque. Or, in an even better world, every statue has either a QR code or something on it that you can look at and be linked to a website maintained by whoever put the statue up or maintains the statue, telling you even more about the complex history that that person lived. Because that's what every statue is: it's a representation of a human being.

And every person, even the vilest of them that has ever lived, has lived a complex life. That they did horrible things, they may have done some good things—probably doesn’t outweigh the bad things that they've done.

I agree even with Sam that: let's take the people who created our country, for example. Many of them did despicable things or participated in creating despicable situations for people who would eventually become Canadian citizens or were Canadian citizens. Or the descendants of them would be Canadian citizens. Or some of them should have been Canadian citizens and were denied full citizenship rights.

But goodness is not greatness. And when we look at statues, we are not called to honor them for being righteous people. That's generally not why statues get built or put into the public. They get put there because they moved our country. They had a tremendous amount of agency. And we are honoring the effect that they had on us.

Be it good or negative—like a war memorial—maybe honoring the values that our soldiers or the honored dead fought to help uphold or preserve or advance. But at the same time, we don't just have those memorials and those statues. We also have statues all around the world—modern and ancient—to despicable people that we intentionally maintain to remind ourselves of the things that they did, how they were allowed, and the context in which they occurred. So that hopefully we may be able to expose ourselves better to that kind of being and perhaps defend ourselves from it by engaging in the structures that we already have here.

So I do think that it would be better to have everyone be able to be perfectly engaged in their history with or without statues, with or without any public symbols or works. They just have this impetus to look into their pasts and how the situation got to where it is. But I think statues —when they exist—are a powerful way of humanizing the past, at the same time recognizing that it is on that past that we and our progress rests. And contrasting their greatness, which is informed by their horribleness in many cases, with where we are now. I don't think it degrades the struggles that people continue to live through. It's a call to action for those of us who already live satisfied lives to continue to advance that boundary—that manifold of justice—towards the boundaries of Canada, and then further beyond wherever possible.

The things that they fought for—not all of them were good—but they led to where we are now. And that they did good or bad things doesn’t negate the fact that their actions are how we got here. And we can't just forget that. Especially since, if we forget that, or if we strike them from the books or we strike them from the public sphere, when people eventually find them, they'll only be exposed to them by people who want to remember them for the very reasons that we want to forget them. And when we strike them for these reasons, people who don't necessarily understand the complexities of why we're striking them—they only see the greatness; they don't see the vileness. And they confuse greatness for goodness. They'll get it in their heads that this person is being unjustly forgotten. And they'll self-identify not just with the goodness, but with all the vile things that their greatness allowed them to do at the same time.

So we are not just protecting ourselves and our futures by remembering our past—good and evil—but most of all great. We are also protecting those of us who are most vulnerable to this kind of regressive, reactionary thinking that would have us remember these people purely because of the bad things that they've done. If we don't remember them, then someone else will find a way to co-opt that memory and confabulate it with something else.

Sam: To the very first point about “goodness does not equate greatness” and that statues were built not necessarily of moral character, but as a testament to what they accomplished—I would disagree on the fact that it was both. The government at the time would not have educated citizens on or considered the actions of those men to be cruel or wrong or anything like that. As many people—as far as my parents' generation—really did not learn and did not know what went on to build our country. And so I would argue that statues were built to them as these complex figures, and not to simply signify what they did—it was to say these were great men.

And the same can be said about Confederate statues. The same can be said about basically every controversial statue. They were built with the intent that these are good men of superb character and deed, and that it should be forever memorialized. The reason we see people react so partially to these statues now is because they see that. They see that that symbolizes the pain, those things that we haven't gotten over yet.

The erasure of statues does not equate to the erasure of history and civic participation. There are other ways we can remember the actions, good and bad, the actions of these men, without necessarily contributing to them directly. So, through the use of memorials, public signage and landmarks and other ways.

It doesn't have to be statues, which again, people view and react thus to seeing that as a testament to what they did good—and the bad some would argue, outweighs the good. Ultimately, I think that that's worth keeping in mind is like why: why we build statues then, why then, why we build statues now.

Share

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

As Canada Day rolls around again, I find myself asking a simple question: what does it even mean to be Canadian anymore? The promise of Canada was never supposed to be some cheesy tagline you slap on a Niagara Falls souvenir mug. It was a real social contract—an agreement that we’d build something better together. But lately? I’ve watched that promise get hijacked and used like a cheap prop by opportunists. I’m talking about Pierre Poilievre, Jamil Jivani, Danielle Smith, Roy Taylor, Grant Abraham, Maxime Bernier—the whole clown car. These folks treat “Canada” like a brand to sell fear at a discount, while they wedge us apart and pretend they’re saving the country.

These are people who either don’t understand what this country was supposed to stand for, or they just don’t give a damn. And to make it worse, some progressives have swung so far the other way that they treat the very idea of being Canadian like it’s some radioactive curse. They act like loving your country automatically means cosigning every mistake it’s ever made. And here I am, caught in the middle, trying to figure out where I fit in this identity crisis.

Here’s where I landed: I’m proud to be Canadian. Not in some performative, flag-cape-wearing, “love it or leave it” kind of way. I love this country because at its best, Canada is an experiment in imagining something better. It’s messy, it’s flawed, but it’s home.

I still believe in the promise of Canada. I believe in the social contract we put to paper in 1982 with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—a document that was once a rare thing: a political moment most people agreed on. It doesn’t matter your gender, race, religion, who you vote for, or which country you or your ancestors came from. If you’re here, if you’re contributing—even if that just means existing and not being a jerk—you’re Canadian.

The rising hate we’re seeing? The spikes in anti-South Asian racism, homophobia, transphobia, biphobia—that’s what happens when people are conned into thinking “Canadian values” mean gatekeeping who gets to belong. That’s not just disappointing. It’s straight-up un-Canadian.

Our flag should stand for unity. It should be a signal to the world that we practice what we preach. And that starts with us. Every single time we refuse to let bigotry wear a maple leaf costume, every time we stand up instead of staying quiet, every time we choose decency over fear, we’re cashing in on that promise.

Canada Day isn’t just about blowing stuff up in the sky and burning sausages on a grill. It’s about remembering that this country is a messy, unfinished project—and choosing, over and over again, to keep building it together.

- Will Adams, CFP Youth — GTA

Subscribe now

Share CFP Youth · Aile Jeunesse du PAC

*Please note the opinions presented in Substack pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Future Party Youth Wing or the Canadian Future Party.

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

The Office, Season 5, Episode 8. Michael Scott is sent on a business trip to Winnipeg, Manitoba. Before he sets off to the Great White North, he announces he is bringing along subordinate salesman Andy as a translator, as he is fluent in French. A good joke at the expense of American ignorance towards Canada, as it's not an uncommon assumption found south of the border that all of us Canucks speak French. If only it were true!

I was born and raised in Ontario, and I imagine, alongside many other Anglo-Canadians, I viewed Quebec as this exotic and foreign place. I was never taught much about it beyond the fact that they just really wanted to leave. What’s our first step in fixing the relationship? Rewrite the narrative. In case you slept through history class, Canada is predominantly anglophone due to the centuries-long domination of the British Empire, which was our primary identity for the longest time. Westminster government, English language, and English monarchy. While Canada may have moved on over time, the core aspects remain. Quebec has remained fiercely distinct and has never forgotten its own history, culture, and, of course, language. If Canada wants to ring its "two founding nations" theory bell (which should really be a much bigger number than two — but that’s a Substack for another day), we should treat our French heritage not as something important only in one part of the nation, but as a core part of our national identity.

If you’ve heard of any controversial Quebec law, you know the justification is always “protecting French language and culture.” And while the Canadian political establishment is happy with this arrangement — even encouraging it with regular official reminders that Quebec is a “distinct nation” — this fails on two levels. Not only does it allow the festering of separatism and nationalism, with the thinking that Quebec is definitively not Canadian, but it also keeps the French language in a box, with little room to grow.

Turning the health and expansion of the French language into a serious national project is not only the natural solution to the above, but it accomplishes something most Canadians hold in the highest regard: further distinction from the United States. A more bilingual Canada is a less American Canada. And setting aside the usual cynicism behind anti-American attitudes, bilingualism is an extremely valuable skill that can help bring about a stronger, renewed Canadian identity for us all. So for now, brush up on your French with Duolingo, don’t sleep through French class, bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous, et bonsoir!

P.S. The Canadian Future Party is the only party proposing a national civil service corps that would send youth across the country with the aim of training for emergency relief and easing the burden on our reserves. But as I intend to propose, it would also be an opportunity to send young Canadians to Quebec and vice versa — which could help spread bilingualism and promote deeper cultural exchange and understanding. That, in turn, could quell Quebec nationalism while growing Canadian unity.

Share

*Veuillez noter que les opinions exprimées dans les articles Substack ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues de l’Aile jeunesse du Parti Avenir Canadien ni celles du Parti Avenir Canadien.

In fall 2022, I experienced a tremendous culture shock that has since become a regular part of my life. I am a born and raised southern Ontarian, my life journeys to that point beginning and ending along the 400 series. But when it came down to pursuing my post-secondary education, I decided to take a bold step. I moved 16 hours north to Thunder Bay, where you step out of the airport and see “Welcome, Bienvenue, Boozhoo.” My knowledge of Indigenous culture had only gone so far as learning in school that the settlers accidentally passed on disease ridden blankets; I could recognize the Iroquois flag, and I had driven through Six Nations once or twice. I was raised to see Indigenous peoples and cultures as these foreign entities.

I find myself up north once again on National Indigenous Peoples Day, attending a powwow on Anemki Wajiw (Mt. McKay), feeling a swell of Canadian pride as I watch the grand entry unfold. Two years in a city with a strong Indigenous presence and culture have left its mark on me and launched a desire in me to learn more. That search led to hundreds of years of war, culture, trade, alliances, and so much more that we are never taught but is essential to the Canadian story.

Canada is often regarded as a very young nation, and in a modern sense, it is. Technically it is just as old as countries such as Germany and Italy, although you’d never think to group them together as “new” places. I believe this to be a result of racist colonial ways of thinking that have been baked into our education giving us the impression that there was nothing worth remembering about pre-Colonial Canada.

Now, thankfully we are seeing this begin to be corrected as Indigenous culture thrives and grows in Canada, but if we are to do real justice, not only for Indigenous people but for ourselves as treaty people, we must begin to include as much Indigenous history as possible into the canonical Canadian timeline.

If you ask me, Canada has been here for a lot longer than 158 years, with a history of multiculturalism, exploration, and carving a safe society within the beautiful yet unforgiving landscape that defines who we are to this day.

Share