Hard Centre: Two candidates, three parties: why the CFP is needed

March 30, 2025

I want to talk about values.

Over recent decades we’ve stopped talking about ethics, values, and the rules of society that guide the way we behave. We let those words be appropriated by the hard right, as though the ethical framework that gave us universal rights, votes for all, and the wealthiest, most successful, most equal civilization in the history of the planet got that way through close-minded bigotry, censoriousness and control over people's private lives.

Over the last few years, we've seen that close-mindedness replicated on the left. We've had to endure a battle between moralizing censors who ignore societal problems, like the strains on our healthcare system or the inadequacy of our national defence, who instead dominate our politics with obsessions over the details of our personal lives, using different words to make the same argument.

The Canadian Future Party rejects this. One of the greatest achievements of Western civilization was the success of regular people in carving out protections to say, think, and act as we wish – so long as it doesn’t do damage to others, or to the fabric of our society.

Where and how we draw that line between the public and private, between rights and responsibilities, is where democratic politics lives. We’ve slid away from those debates, and I want to use a couple of examples from this federal election to show you what I mean, and to offer a better way forward.

First, we have the Conservative candidate, Matt Strauss, a physician who made a name for himself opposing COVID public health measures, including vaccines, – and who celebrated his nomination to sit in our House of Commons by appearing on RT, the Russian propaganda channel now banned in Canada.

Second, we have an incumbent Liberal MP, Paul Chiang, who suggested in an interview that his Conservative opponent be kidnapped and handed over to the Chinese consulate in exchange for bounty money.

To me, the fact that these two men remain on the ballot is much more important than passing arguments about whose tax cuts are bigger that will disappear in the froth of the next crash of crises to wash over us, these next few years.

Political parties have one job: to act as a filter between the public and the Parliament. They can’t decide who runs -any citizen can run for office, and that’s as it should be- but they can say that a candidate has met a minimum standard, based on their background, their character, and their appeal to voters. The temptation is to just look at that last feature, for politicians to justify following the crowd rather than leading it, and to justify poor candidates and policies - the way Foreign Minister Melanie Joly did, earlier this year, when she said the demographics of her riding determined her position on the war between Israel and Hamas.

We can trace this failure of Western leadership back to the Tea Party, to Sarah Palin, to Brexit, to social media, to Russian dis- and misinformation campaigns, to the nomination of Donald Trump, or, here at home, to the increasingly treasonous premiership of our own Danielle Smith. But in the end, in a democracy, whatever happens is our collective responsibility. Unlike regular folks at any other point in time or place in history, this is our problem to fix.

So why would one major party allow candidates (sadly, there are many more anti-science conspiracists running for the Conservatives, notably Roman Baber, who was expelled from Doug Ford’s caucus for his anti-vaccine views, but was chosen to lead Pierre Poilievre’s campaign kickoff, and MP Leslyn Lewis, who constantly shares a wide range of conspiracies) who, bluntly, reject reality? And why would the Liberals, the party of the Charter and human rights, allow a sitting member of Parliament to threaten direct foreign interference – at the hands of a totalitarian state that spies on Canada, and abducts and executes Canadians - against a political opponent?

The answer to both questions: a lack of focus on values. A lot of Canadians fell for conspiracies around COVID, and promising to repeat those lies in Ottawa is a vote winner in some places. Equally, community groups controlled by the Chinese Communist Party make speaking out against the CCP difficult or dangerous in some places and confronting them means confronting the political power we’ve allowed China to take over our domestic politics, and the diaspora community. When Canadian MPs use the threat of Chinese legal action to intimidate opponents it’s no wonder Chinese-Canadians fear that Beijing has more influence over their lives than Canadian law.

Standing up for science and evidence on the one hand, for Canada and democracy on the other, would mean our main parties would need to completely change their approach. Instead of being led by special interest groups, they’d have to confront them. That would mean hard choices, and they would be politically unpopular in some corners. So those parties dodge or embrace their extremists: it makes sense if all you care about is the next election. But if you care about Canada’s future, it makes no sense at all: do we really want to normalize rejecting science in favour of emotion and superstition? Do we really want our House of Commons filled with people who show more loyalty to a foreign state than to Canada?

That’s where the Canadian Future Party comes in. We are an explicitly values-based party. We take a clear and universal stance on our politics: that protecting our private lives from government interference is as critical to our democracy as protecting our public life from extremism, from the left or right. And that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, for all people, everywhere.

Starting from a values-based position means we have a clear starting point from which to tackle political problems. When it comes to Mr. Chiang, the solution to the problem is easy: revoke his nomination and Liberal membership, condemn his statements without qualification, and welcome an RCMP investigation. I can’t imagine that Mr. Carney would have tolerated a member of his team at the Bank of Canada saying what Mr. Chiang said: shouldn’t we have even higher standards for our Parliament?

With Dr. Strauss, the solution is also clear. Vaccines are highly regulated, highly effective, and very safe. COVID vaccines saved over 20 million lives. Vaccines protect all of us, and are reasonable infringement on our rights – just like laws against drunk driving. It’s only because we’ve tolerated evidence-free anti-vaxx nonsense that we now have Mr. Poilievre saying that, if he becomes Prime Minister and another pandemic hits, that he would never introduce vaccine mandates or other public safety measures. That’s like saying if a certain country invades us that we won’t defend ourselves, as proof of some sort of libertarian principle.

So, if you want a politics where people like Mr. Chiang and Dr. Strauss wouldn’t be welcome as members, consider the Canadian Future Party. Only by increasing standards for public life can we get better results. A Parliament with MPs loyal to Beijing more than Canada on the one side, or to delusions over the health and safety of Canadians on the other, just isn’t acceptable as we confront threats to our independence.

If, like me, you want more from our politics I hope you’ll join us. It’s time to take a stand for ethics, values, clear standards, and the rule of law - before we lose all that those who came before us worked so hard to build.

‍