Much has been made—including in these columns—of the fact that our new and current Prime Minister has never been elected to a seat in Parliament, much less to the prestigious role he now occupies. It was a foregone conclusion that he would seek to rectify that situation either in a general election or in a by-election. To the relief of some, and the dismay of others, Mr. Carney has chosen to seek a seat in a general election. That seat is in the federal electoral district of Nepean, right next to the Carlton district occupied and soon to be contended for by none other than the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Pierre Poilievre.

The only complicating factor in the calculations that led to this choice was that the district of Nepean was occupied by a liberal MP, Mr. Chandra Arya, who was already the nominated candidate to represent the Liberals in the upcoming election.

It’s not unusual in political circles for the leader of a party seeking a guaranteed win, to ask the incumbent resident or the presumptive candidate in what is called a “secure seat,” to step aside “for the good of the party” and to allow that leader to take that seat. There may, at times, be offered some compensation for the sacrifice or some promise of a future position.

In the case of MP Chandra Arya, there does not to appear to have been these types of discussions. Mr. Arya was simply told—if we are to believe newspaper reports—that the Liberal Party had disqualified him as a candidate in Nepean. That was on March 20. Two days later, it was announced that Mark Carney would run in the district. That’s the second time Mr. Arya has been pushed out of a contest involving Mark Carney. During the recent Liberal leadership contest, MP Arya was summarily dismissed as a potential contestant. No reason for his disqualification was given.

Now, I am not a particular fan of MP Arya nor of any other Liberal Members of Parliament. For the past nine years, they have been complicit in the dismantling of the Canadian economy and culture. For the most part, they have given unqualified and unquestioning support for the destructive policies of Justin Trudeau. Political parties and their leaders have both a right and responsibility to vet their candidates and to disqualify those they deem unfit. However, one sometimes looks—even in a party as corrupt and compromised as the Liberals—for some trace of “honour among thieves.”

If Mr. Carney and the party brass had felt it was so important to have the new party leader run in the Nepean district, could they not have spoken to him and asked him to step aside? Was it really necessary to “disqualify” him after he had already been nominated? Could they not have achieved the same purpose without the backroom tactics?

Of course, this type of thing is nothing new for either of the two largest mainstream parties. The Conservatives have also had their share of nomination manipulations. Rarely are reasons given, much less the real reasons. In recent years, Conservative nominees have been ejected from nomination races (the Yukon and Oxford districts come to mind) and several potential Conservative leadership hopefuls were also told that they were ineligible in the race that ultimately put Pierre Poilievre at the helm.

But all that is history. More critical now, in the early days of this federal election, is the question of how Canadians will vote on April 28th.

The man, now leading the Liberal Party and the presumptive Prime Minister, Mr. Mark Carney, was elevated to that position with 131,674 votes out of a potential Liberal Party voting base of over 400,000 members. He received about 86% of the votes that were tallied. However, only about 38% of Liberal members registered to vote did so. The actual percentage achieved from registered Liberal members was only 32.9%. When compared with all eligible electors in Canada (more than 28 million of them), the percentage is a shocking .5 %. The total population of Canada is 41,528,680. Mr. Carney became our Prime Minister with the votes of only .3%, less than 1/3 of one percent of the population. In that sense, seeking a mandate through a general election was absolutely necessary.

The alarming thing about all this is the dramatic swing in public opinion since PM Trudeau stepped down and the Liberal leadership race took place. An angry public that seemed intent on throwing out the tiresome Liberal gang that has oppressed and dispossessed us for nine years is now—again, if we can believe the polls and the papers—prepared to welcome them back with a new leader and a promise of change.

What appeared to be a walk in the park for Pierre Poilievre, a few months ago, is now expected to be a nail-biter. We in the CHP see the return of the same old clichés and excuses: “We just have to get rid of the Liberals.” “We can’t split the vote.” “We have to be sure Carney doesn’t get back in.” And on it goes. The fact that both Mr. Carney and Mr. Poilievre support abortion on demand, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage and global control of Canada’s healthcare system seems to have been forgotten. The support both leaders and their caucuses gave to C-4 seems to have no bearing on voter intention. The fact that both leaders are ready to fight American tariffs with equally-damaging Canadian tariffs—tariffs that will raise the cost of living for Canadians—has not moved the needle significantly.

But candidates for the Christian Heritage Party will raise those questions in districts across the country. We will call on pro-life voters who have an active conscience to exercise their right and responsibility to defend innocent human life, traditional family values and respect for the supremacy of God at the ballot box. Candidates this week will be collecting signatures and filing papers to have the CHP and moral principles on the ballot. If you do not yet have a CHP candidate in your district, contact George at National Office and ask for a candidate application package. There’s still time, but it’s running out! Act today!