A reminder to all readers: You are not going to win the next election for your team by being insulting to supporters of the other team. A wide variety of opinions, and some vigorous disagreement, are natural and welcome. Personal insults at other readers aren't.
Good comment Brian! That succinctly encapsulates the simplistic libertarian nonsense relentlessly spouted by the current leader of the opposition. He promises that with a wave of his hand, all regulations and oversight will disappear unleashing untold floods of capital and facilitating an unencumbered path to utopia ! One might recall that ten years of conservative rule resulted in 0 pipelines to tidewater and 0 LNG export terminals. Mr. Polievre’s record of achievement during more than 20 years as a federal MP speaks for itself. The one piece of legislation that he was tasked with promoting on electoral reform was roundly repudiated as profoundly undemocratic. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Polievre is the transformative leader he would have us believe. Good at destructive rhetoric. Not so good at constructive accomplishment.
Building things faster is not libertarian nonsense. It’s what we used to do in this country and can do again. What’s your plan - more of the same sclerosis that has gotten us into this mess? Your mindless partisan rhetoric has no place on this group.
My point is that no politician can promise instant gratification. My comment is no more partisan than what generally appears in response to Mr. well’s compelling pieces. Interesting that you would advocate for censorship of comments that you disagree with.
Note - Mr. Polievre was a member of the governing CPC when he presented his proposals for the so called Fair Elections Act - which incidentally, went down in flames.
Trudeau cynically and manipulatively baited a segment of the electorate with insincere promises of electoral reform, only to pointlessly and needlessly burn that segment in the worst way possible. Poilievre tried to rush through a partisan electoral reform bill and then ignorantly mock and insult the torrent of opposition that he inflamed, before then abruptly compromising with the same democracy experts he had previously insulted.
But where many progressives have never forgiven Trudeau for this slight, conservatives tend to memory-hole the record of "Fair Elections" Act and laughably believe that Poilievre has a history of political acumen! And, of course, Trudeau is no longer a candidate for Prime Minister, whereas Poilievre still is.
I enjoy observing the terror that underlies the reactions by you, the CBC and MSM in general with regard to Mr Poilievre. It is always argumentum ad hominem, never the policy statements or criticisms of Carney’s gaffs, inadequacies or dumb statements such as “How much steel are you using these days?” (On CTV defending the industrial carbon tax😅)
Hi Paul. Your imposter has shown up as my follower. I have reported the impersonator and taken a screen shot of the fake profile. I am unsure whether to block said impersonator, mute them, or just what. Advice?
Good speech. I’m really encouraged to see how elevated the discourse is lately compared to the cheap point-scoring during the Trudeau years.
I would like to understand from Mr. Poilievre and the CPC what their plan is for First Nations sovereignty and veto over pipeline projects, which is rooted in S.35 jurisprudence and not in anything Justin Trudeau’s government passed. I note he’s real quiet on this, the single biggest issue, when talking about how his government would have six pipelines under construction within a year or whatever.
At 3x the original schedule and 4x the original cost! I would submit that if we build everything like we had to build TMX, the country is doomed.
We have to get to the private sector building stuff and without the conditions put on TMX.
That’s the two paths: the “Carney path” of having _all_ FN invested in fossil fuel projects (“becoming industrial capitalists” I often say), and the “Poilievre path” of … not sure what it is. Approve things within a year (which TMX very much was not) and not clear how to deal with a TMX scenario where one or more FN say that they haven’t been adequately consulted?
Don't forget that government built the project. It didn't cost more because of first nations, it cost more because it was delayed and because government, pretty much any Canadian government, is incredibly inefficient and wasteful.
Trans Mountain cost taxpayers billions partly because the BC NDP government used taxpayers money to oppose the building and frustrated investors to drop the project. We will never win as Canadians while using our own money against ourselves.
Carney isn’t trying to just repeal the tanker ban immediately and get back to a pre-Haida (2004) legal regime on pipeline approvals. He’s trying to work with the First Nations who have become industrial capitalists and want to buy into projects, and (I assume) marginalize the anti-development Dark Green Indigenous communities that way.
It’s a very different approach from the CPC, one that is consistent with S.35 jurisprudence, so I don’t think Carney owes anyone a plan for how to deal with S.35.
Carney has emphasized working with indigenous partners every step of the way. Hodgson was appointed energy minister in part due to his history of succesfull collaboration with First Nations communities.
Sadly, we all need to stop saying "coastal First Nations" when we are talking about the FN bands who are actually affected by these projects, because the anti-oil activist organization who (cleverly) rebranded themselves "Coastal First Nations" have co-opted that specific phrasing.
For clarity, we need to now say "First Nations of the coastal region" instead.
And MOST of the FN bands in the direct path of these developments are actually VERY supportive of them going ahead.
...the activist group "Coastal First Nations" has endorsement from only 8 of BC's over 200 First Nations.
Very true, but the problem with linear infrastructure is it crosses lots of territory, and if every group along the route has a veto, it only takes one to stop it (or make it take 12 years and go 4x its original budget, like Trans Mountain).
"There is an illusion of purpose, but no results to back it up."
That quote, lifted from the final paragraphs of Poilievre's essay may be a fairly accurate assessment of what many, many working class Canadians are thinking at this dark time.
Poilievre also correctly states that much of the slow as molasses progress traces back to policy and legislative decisions that were designed to stifle investment and project development. These growth inhibiting obstacles are in desperate need of reform, and yet they linger on like dirty diapers that everyone notices but the parents won't touch.
I am glad that Poilievre found the grace to pass some congratulations to the Prime Minister for his speech. He should try that more often.
Here too, doesn’t it (alas) depend to some extent at least on how you define “result” (sorry to evoke memories of Bill Clinton)? Take interprovincial free trade: true to his word, Carney abolished the federal restrictions. Is that a result? For some, yes; for others, only lifting of barriers by the provinces will do, and if Carney can’t do it himself, he needs to make the premiers do it before he can claim a “result”. Ditto for pipelines (seems to me the ball is in Smith’s court now), or trade agreements/MOUs, and so forth. If you’re warm to the PM, you’re more likely to be indulgent; if you loathe him, your standards for what counts as a “result” will be much higher, perhaps impossibly high. Just a thought.
Carney has had nine months in power so far, and has passed exactly one Bill.
His Build Canada Strong efforts were supposed to get new exciting projects moving forward with great haste - and so far NOT ONE new project has been announced.
The "Major Projects Office" (built at great cost) has instead (very cynically) RE-announced several already-in progress projects
I'm willing to bet that people less antipathetic toward Carney could pretty easily respond to you by naming some other things that constitute "results" in their eyes. I'm not going to do that, because it would just inflame matters. Your views are what they are, and I'm unlikely to change them by arguing with you, something I have no interest in doing in any case. It's obviously up to Carney to try to satisfy you and all other Canadians, an objective manifestly impossible but nonetheless worth pursuing if you're the PM,.
Of course "results" just means results, but you demonstrate my point, which is that different people will be satisfied--or not--by different things.
That was well stated. Carney does talk a good game but there have been exactly zero results so far. They need to start delivering and, if they do, the conservatives need to behind them and support it. Oppose things you don’t elect in but support actions that are good for Canada.
The problem, at least to some extent, is that what some view as “good for Canada”, others will condemn as “bound to destroy Canada”: the industrial carbon tax, pipelines to the West Coast (or wherever), First Nations sovereignty, and so forth. Perhaps we could agree to debate those questions in good faith and without presupposing that opposing views are “virtue signalling” or “Trump envy”? Just a thought.
Agreed! However there are some baseline standards about what's good for Canada. Diversification of trade, investment in capital projects in Canada, any agreements that reduce inflation, especially food inflation, etc. If we start from items that the majority agrees with we can pick off the low hanging fruit and start to build something together. We don't need everyone to agree, we need everyone to get on board. If Poilievre doesn't agree with trade with China, propose an alternative. If Carney doesn't want to cancel some of the laws that are preventing projects from getting approved, then show us how you are going to do it. Enough talk from Carney and bluster from Poilievre; get some things done!
No disagreement from me on the broad outline of what you say, but of course once you get to specifics, it gets harder very quickly. I once heard a wiser person than I define "consensus" as "having enough support to be able to proceed". Problems arise when you have saboteurs who feign support in order to be able to use back-channelling and behind-the-scenes undermining to derail projects. And there's always tension between going to quick wins to demonstrate success and "placing the big rocks first" (i.e., dealing with the most substantial issues at the outset). But demonstrating good faith is always going to be the key, I think.
I like it. Pierre has produced an expansive list of promises to the Canadian populace. All of these are great ideas. I am abundantly aware that achieving many of them may be burdened by factors no one can anticipate at this time. So When he become our PM, lets give him and the Conservatives a chance to get it done. Thank you Mr. Wells for showing this thoughtful list that I as a Conservative am proud to say cannot be shot down by needless Liberal/NDP opposition.
An excellent response to Carney’s speech at Davos and valid criticisms. I am not sure that enough folks give credit to Carney’s amazing luck and Poilievre’s lack of same.
Well...one is a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, and the former governor of two central banks while the other has been an MP for the vast majority of his working life.
No one is self made, and luck helps, but to think those are unrelated downplays Carney's accomplishments and assumes that Poilievre couldn't have made better decisions.
Overall, a good speech, especially considering who delivered it. Some general observations. Who is buying all this pipeline production going to the west coast? China. Yet he considers China a threat. Also, he’s impatient as to results. It’s been less than a year (April) since Carney took power. He’s removed federal barriers to interprovincial trade. It’s now in the hands of premiers. He’s committed a budget to defense. Does PP think forces and equipment appear overnight. Turning around a nation’s direction takes a bit more than nine months.
Exactly this. If one digs into his more specific criticisms, one finds a foundation of bad faith. This was a better-articulated and more serious-sounding delivery of the same tired rhetoric, that boils down to "blame the PM/Libs for every single thing whether reasonable or not." Intellectual honesty need not apply.
This is not a new government, only a new leader. Does Carney deserve some time? Sure! But we have already been wasting time for 10 years and the clock is getting closer to midnight. This is mostly the same cabinet and caucus that created or ignored a lot of these issues, time to deliver is now.
His whole schtick is masking the unreasonable through general platitudes like this. Who could argue with such a reasonable statement?
And yet, reality is not so clean and simple or satisfying as the sloganeers suggest, even if you'd like it to be. Details matter. Facts matter.
On the general point you make, Carney is dramatically different from his predecessor. I don't think you will find a reasonably non-partisan analyst who would agree that this is the same old Liberal Government. Carney is more Progressive Conservative than Liberal, I think.
On the specifics, which is where I said his argument falls apart, Poilievre for example blamed Carney for the economic woes facing Canadians at the moment. That is extraordinarily unfair - Canada is facing a trade war from a US that seeks to subjugate us. It is hurting. Carney is aggressively taking action to protect our sovereigty and find new trade opportunities. These things take time, always - to blame him for the pain he didn't cause while failing to acknowledge the very real steps he is taking to address it is to argue in bad faith. What's worse, Poilievre has been embarassingly positive toward Trump and seems to share a base with him. It is far far from clear that Poilievre would be as aggressive in defending our socereignty from Trump's predations.
Paul, You're completely wrong. I noticed that your newsletter here is up to number five in the world rankings and clearly the soapbox upon which we shall win the next election for our partisans! Thanks again for opening the comments.
I see there are questions about whether this was a speech. Belatedly: No, it's just an unusually long statement that was emailed to reporters and posted on the CPC website. Thanks to everyone for a good discussion.
It is pretty difficult to arrange an appropriate venue and audience to meet your apparent standards for a "speech" where a timely response was required and necessary.
If Poilievre had waited to meet your requirements for a "speech", the criticism would have been where is Poilievre and why is he taking so long to say anything.
I commented on Carney's - calling it a good speech. I think Poilievre's is also a good speech.
Credit to Paul Wells for posting both in full. Others agree - Financial Times Alphaville this morning calls Paul's Carney post "one of the highlights of the week."
Also credit to those of us who actually read (and thought about) both. We are all getting too much of our supposed "information" from short sound bites both created by politicians themselves and edited by others.
Longer forms help. We can decide for ourselves whether we think they are well reasoned or not.
Although I’m a conservative, I have been somewhat critical of what often seems to be Pierre’s, shall we say, limited repertoire, though I believe him to be a decent man with good intentions and positive ideas for Canadians.
This is a refreshing change of tone, and much more like what I want a Conservative leader to be. Canadians can - and should - debate Pierre’s proposals, or their prospective impacts, thoughtfully, but they are reasonable offerings for a struggling country to regain its footing.
Reluctant as I am to give the populist panderer any credit, PP makes solid critiques in his first adult-like speech. His strongest point, and the easiest for MC to fix, is our military's recruiting and equipment disaster. This is especially acute given we have a US commander in chief who uses his military to nakedly expropriate a neighbour's resources, and a US electorate that doesn't care if he does.
We can never trust the Americans again.
But can we trust ourselves to shoot straight?
It takes 9 months for the CAF to hire a private, who needs only a Grade 10 education. Most applicants give up waiting. The few our feckless CAF recruiters manage to get to basic training, which is not hard to pass, then find there is not enough equipment to train with, no sense of mission, and they quit. The personnel shortfall has not changed despite raising salaries.
The equipment shortfall is a mystery in a world awash in military-grade weaponry ready for next day delivery.
Paul Wells recently wrote a sobering piece on how hard it is to even get a building permit, let alone build anything in this country (https://substack.com/@paulwells/p-182385393) - Canada is the worst of 32 in the OECD. I build rental housing in Toronto. I've gotten permits and a building completed in less time than it takes the CAF to hire a soldier and show him how to use a gun.
Our military problem is easier and faster to solve than building oil pipelines. Churchill, King and FDR hired proven business leaders to reform military recruitment, training and procurement. They won.
There is lots of handwringing about the terrible recruitment process in the CAF, but will things ever change for the better when the government is more focused on the equity of the enlistments than assembling a purpose built war machine? (And let's not kid ourselves, armies are not built to rescue civilians from floods or provide backup services on PCH wards.)
WW2 brought Canada to the forefront of international affairs, and we are still resting on those hard earned laurels today. One of the key things organized for the war effort was the flat out, at speeds never seen before building of hangars, runways and the infrastructure to train pilots and navigators for the Commonwealth Air Training Program.
We see the need for urgency, but what is holding us back?
What's with the lame Lord Palmerston quote? Plus, I wish PP would just dispense with the gab and furnish his fellow Canadians with the magic wand he plans to wave once he takes office. We could solve solve all our problems.. what was that word he used... Oh right, "now."
Poilievre made some good points. Carney certainly caused a stir, and rightly so. As Poilievre acknowledged, no one can can but applaud the roadmap he’s sketched out for Canada to become more resilient, more diversified and more stand-uppish with other middle powers to the U.S. and China. For that act of defiance alone, he hit his mark.
The danger he and our and other PMs will face is that China reciprocates overtures, and before you know where you are, they have leverage and coercive possibilities that were not visible before. This has become a wow-collaborate - agree-fall out- freeze rinse and return cycle for so many already. Look where Germsnu and the EU, and Thailand are after doing big diversification deals with China: hollowing out of their car industries, for starters. So I hope we will indeed go into these arrangements with eyes open.
What bothered me though was the rhetoric. And whether it betrayed a wekness? He evokes a hero of Czechoslovakian resistance to the communists to draw a parallel with our having lived the lie of the liberal order. I think that’s just bad analogy and an mis-read of Havel. He also does that while embracing Xi jinping who treats his citizens every bit as the Soviets and communists did theirs. I also think Carney’s challenge to rebuild a technocratic and better governance system in the fave of big power bullies. He didn’t need the moral and individual freedom metaphor.
A reminder to all readers: You are not going to win the next election for your team by being insulting to supporters of the other team. A wide variety of opinions, and some vigorous disagreement, are natural and welcome. Personal insults at other readers aren't.
abra. cadabra
Good comment Brian! That succinctly encapsulates the simplistic libertarian nonsense relentlessly spouted by the current leader of the opposition. He promises that with a wave of his hand, all regulations and oversight will disappear unleashing untold floods of capital and facilitating an unencumbered path to utopia ! One might recall that ten years of conservative rule resulted in 0 pipelines to tidewater and 0 LNG export terminals. Mr. Polievre’s record of achievement during more than 20 years as a federal MP speaks for itself. The one piece of legislation that he was tasked with promoting on electoral reform was roundly repudiated as profoundly undemocratic. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Mr. Polievre is the transformative leader he would have us believe. Good at destructive rhetoric. Not so good at constructive accomplishment.
Building things faster is not libertarian nonsense. It’s what we used to do in this country and can do again. What’s your plan - more of the same sclerosis that has gotten us into this mess? Your mindless partisan rhetoric has no place on this group.
My point is that no politician can promise instant gratification. My comment is no more partisan than what generally appears in response to Mr. well’s compelling pieces. Interesting that you would advocate for censorship of comments that you disagree with.
Yes, calling a policy ‘libertarian nonsense’ is not at all partisan or polemical!
You didn't quite understand Paul Wells point, did you? You should go back and read it again.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is the problem. you should review PW’s thoughts about attacking others.
Clearly, opposition parties that don't get new legislation passed are.....oh, wait.
Note - Mr. Polievre was a member of the governing CPC when he presented his proposals for the so called Fair Elections Act - which incidentally, went down in flames.
Note: Mr Trudeau fought an election on PR, which went down in flames. Point?
Trudeau cynically and manipulatively baited a segment of the electorate with insincere promises of electoral reform, only to pointlessly and needlessly burn that segment in the worst way possible. Poilievre tried to rush through a partisan electoral reform bill and then ignorantly mock and insult the torrent of opposition that he inflamed, before then abruptly compromising with the same democracy experts he had previously insulted.
But where many progressives have never forgiven Trudeau for this slight, conservatives tend to memory-hole the record of "Fair Elections" Act and laughably believe that Poilievre has a history of political acumen! And, of course, Trudeau is no longer a candidate for Prime Minister, whereas Poilievre still is.
I enjoy observing the terror that underlies the reactions by you, the CBC and MSM in general with regard to Mr Poilievre. It is always argumentum ad hominem, never the policy statements or criticisms of Carney’s gaffs, inadequacies or dumb statements such as “How much steel are you using these days?” (On CTV defending the industrial carbon tax😅)
Hi Paul. Your imposter has shown up as my follower. I have reported the impersonator and taken a screen shot of the fake profile. I am unsure whether to block said impersonator, mute them, or just what. Advice?
So far, today's commentary is quite different from yesterday's. I'm curious to see the impact to your subscriptions.
Good speech. I’m really encouraged to see how elevated the discourse is lately compared to the cheap point-scoring during the Trudeau years.
I would like to understand from Mr. Poilievre and the CPC what their plan is for First Nations sovereignty and veto over pipeline projects, which is rooted in S.35 jurisprudence and not in anything Justin Trudeau’s government passed. I note he’s real quiet on this, the single biggest issue, when talking about how his government would have six pipelines under construction within a year or whatever.
The premise of your second paragraph is false. There is no Supreme Court precident for any veto, only to consult. Cabinet decides in the end.
How is the 2018 SCC re: Trans Mountain not tantamount to granting a veto power? 5 years of consultation and the SCC struck down the approval.
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-ca/knowledge/publications/33027c87/deja-vu-all-over-again-federal-court-of-appeal-rejects-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion
Well, probably because the very case you say is a veto, TMX, went ahead and is in service since 2024. Because Cabinet said so.
At 3x the original schedule and 4x the original cost! I would submit that if we build everything like we had to build TMX, the country is doomed.
We have to get to the private sector building stuff and without the conditions put on TMX.
That’s the two paths: the “Carney path” of having _all_ FN invested in fossil fuel projects (“becoming industrial capitalists” I often say), and the “Poilievre path” of … not sure what it is. Approve things within a year (which TMX very much was not) and not clear how to deal with a TMX scenario where one or more FN say that they haven’t been adequately consulted?
Don't forget that government built the project. It didn't cost more because of first nations, it cost more because it was delayed and because government, pretty much any Canadian government, is incredibly inefficient and wasteful.
It cost more because of all of it.
I very much doubt that even if built privately that it would have been "on-time, and on-budget".
Infrastructure on that scale is almost always late and over budget. For many reasons not least of which is optimistic numbers to get buy in.
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/Why-do-large-projects-go-over-budget
Trans Mountain cost taxpayers billions partly because the BC NDP government used taxpayers money to oppose the building and frustrated investors to drop the project. We will never win as Canadians while using our own money against ourselves.
I haven't seen anything from Carney either, unless I missed it.
Carney isn’t trying to just repeal the tanker ban immediately and get back to a pre-Haida (2004) legal regime on pipeline approvals. He’s trying to work with the First Nations who have become industrial capitalists and want to buy into projects, and (I assume) marginalize the anti-development Dark Green Indigenous communities that way.
It’s a very different approach from the CPC, one that is consistent with S.35 jurisprudence, so I don’t think Carney owes anyone a plan for how to deal with S.35.
1st thing could do is ditch the charade that talking to CFN is actually talking to 1st nations.
Carney has emphasized working with indigenous partners every step of the way. Hodgson was appointed energy minister in part due to his history of succesfull collaboration with First Nations communities.
Fair point, but isn’t it also the case that not all coastal First Nations oppose a pipeline?
Sadly, we all need to stop saying "coastal First Nations" when we are talking about the FN bands who are actually affected by these projects, because the anti-oil activist organization who (cleverly) rebranded themselves "Coastal First Nations" have co-opted that specific phrasing.
For clarity, we need to now say "First Nations of the coastal region" instead.
And MOST of the FN bands in the direct path of these developments are actually VERY supportive of them going ahead.
...the activist group "Coastal First Nations" has endorsement from only 8 of BC's over 200 First Nations.
Very true, but the problem with linear infrastructure is it crosses lots of territory, and if every group along the route has a veto, it only takes one to stop it (or make it take 12 years and go 4x its original budget, like Trans Mountain).
"There is an illusion of purpose, but no results to back it up."
That quote, lifted from the final paragraphs of Poilievre's essay may be a fairly accurate assessment of what many, many working class Canadians are thinking at this dark time.
Poilievre also correctly states that much of the slow as molasses progress traces back to policy and legislative decisions that were designed to stifle investment and project development. These growth inhibiting obstacles are in desperate need of reform, and yet they linger on like dirty diapers that everyone notices but the parents won't touch.
I am glad that Poilievre found the grace to pass some congratulations to the Prime Minister for his speech. He should try that more often.
Here too, doesn’t it (alas) depend to some extent at least on how you define “result” (sorry to evoke memories of Bill Clinton)? Take interprovincial free trade: true to his word, Carney abolished the federal restrictions. Is that a result? For some, yes; for others, only lifting of barriers by the provinces will do, and if Carney can’t do it himself, he needs to make the premiers do it before he can claim a “result”. Ditto for pipelines (seems to me the ball is in Smith’s court now), or trade agreements/MOUs, and so forth. If you’re warm to the PM, you’re more likely to be indulgent; if you loathe him, your standards for what counts as a “result” will be much higher, perhaps impossibly high. Just a thought.
Carney has had nine months in power so far, and has passed exactly one Bill.
His Build Canada Strong efforts were supposed to get new exciting projects moving forward with great haste - and so far NOT ONE new project has been announced.
The "Major Projects Office" (built at great cost) has instead (very cynically) RE-announced several already-in progress projects
Sometimes "results" just means results.
We're not getting them.
I'm willing to bet that people less antipathetic toward Carney could pretty easily respond to you by naming some other things that constitute "results" in their eyes. I'm not going to do that, because it would just inflame matters. Your views are what they are, and I'm unlikely to change them by arguing with you, something I have no interest in doing in any case. It's obviously up to Carney to try to satisfy you and all other Canadians, an objective manifestly impossible but nonetheless worth pursuing if you're the PM,.
Of course "results" just means results, but you demonstrate my point, which is that different people will be satisfied--or not--by different things.
That was well stated. Carney does talk a good game but there have been exactly zero results so far. They need to start delivering and, if they do, the conservatives need to behind them and support it. Oppose things you don’t elect in but support actions that are good for Canada.
The problem, at least to some extent, is that what some view as “good for Canada”, others will condemn as “bound to destroy Canada”: the industrial carbon tax, pipelines to the West Coast (or wherever), First Nations sovereignty, and so forth. Perhaps we could agree to debate those questions in good faith and without presupposing that opposing views are “virtue signalling” or “Trump envy”? Just a thought.
Agreed! However there are some baseline standards about what's good for Canada. Diversification of trade, investment in capital projects in Canada, any agreements that reduce inflation, especially food inflation, etc. If we start from items that the majority agrees with we can pick off the low hanging fruit and start to build something together. We don't need everyone to agree, we need everyone to get on board. If Poilievre doesn't agree with trade with China, propose an alternative. If Carney doesn't want to cancel some of the laws that are preventing projects from getting approved, then show us how you are going to do it. Enough talk from Carney and bluster from Poilievre; get some things done!
No disagreement from me on the broad outline of what you say, but of course once you get to specifics, it gets harder very quickly. I once heard a wiser person than I define "consensus" as "having enough support to be able to proceed". Problems arise when you have saboteurs who feign support in order to be able to use back-channelling and behind-the-scenes undermining to derail projects. And there's always tension between going to quick wins to demonstrate success and "placing the big rocks first" (i.e., dealing with the most substantial issues at the outset). But demonstrating good faith is always going to be the key, I think.
UGH! Too true
I like it. Pierre has produced an expansive list of promises to the Canadian populace. All of these are great ideas. I am abundantly aware that achieving many of them may be burdened by factors no one can anticipate at this time. So When he become our PM, lets give him and the Conservatives a chance to get it done. Thank you Mr. Wells for showing this thoughtful list that I as a Conservative am proud to say cannot be shot down by needless Liberal/NDP opposition.
Hm. Did he hire a new speech writer? Unfortunately after years of cheap three word slogans it rings hollow.
What you're admitting is that you've never listened to any of his prior speeches.
An excellent response to Carney’s speech at Davos and valid criticisms. I am not sure that enough folks give credit to Carney’s amazing luck and Poilievre’s lack of same.
Well...one is a graduate of Harvard and Oxford, and the former governor of two central banks while the other has been an MP for the vast majority of his working life.
Which one is luckier?
That's the thing about luck Andre. It's not related
No one is self made, and luck helps, but to think those are unrelated downplays Carney's accomplishments and assumes that Poilievre couldn't have made better decisions.
Overall, a good speech, especially considering who delivered it. Some general observations. Who is buying all this pipeline production going to the west coast? China. Yet he considers China a threat. Also, he’s impatient as to results. It’s been less than a year (April) since Carney took power. He’s removed federal barriers to interprovincial trade. It’s now in the hands of premiers. He’s committed a budget to defense. Does PP think forces and equipment appear overnight. Turning around a nation’s direction takes a bit more than nine months.
...you don't think Japan might want some of our oil? Korea? India...?
There is a lot more to Asia than just China, friend.
So much easier to sell to one big customer than several smaller that still wouldn't match the consumption.
Exactly this. If one digs into his more specific criticisms, one finds a foundation of bad faith. This was a better-articulated and more serious-sounding delivery of the same tired rhetoric, that boils down to "blame the PM/Libs for every single thing whether reasonable or not." Intellectual honesty need not apply.
Seems reasonable to blame the party in power for the last 10 years for the things that have happened in the last ten years.
This is not a new government, only a new leader. Does Carney deserve some time? Sure! But we have already been wasting time for 10 years and the clock is getting closer to midnight. This is mostly the same cabinet and caucus that created or ignored a lot of these issues, time to deliver is now.
His whole schtick is masking the unreasonable through general platitudes like this. Who could argue with such a reasonable statement?
And yet, reality is not so clean and simple or satisfying as the sloganeers suggest, even if you'd like it to be. Details matter. Facts matter.
On the general point you make, Carney is dramatically different from his predecessor. I don't think you will find a reasonably non-partisan analyst who would agree that this is the same old Liberal Government. Carney is more Progressive Conservative than Liberal, I think.
On the specifics, which is where I said his argument falls apart, Poilievre for example blamed Carney for the economic woes facing Canadians at the moment. That is extraordinarily unfair - Canada is facing a trade war from a US that seeks to subjugate us. It is hurting. Carney is aggressively taking action to protect our sovereigty and find new trade opportunities. These things take time, always - to blame him for the pain he didn't cause while failing to acknowledge the very real steps he is taking to address it is to argue in bad faith. What's worse, Poilievre has been embarassingly positive toward Trump and seems to share a base with him. It is far far from clear that Poilievre would be as aggressive in defending our socereignty from Trump's predations.
Totally agree!
Agree!
Paul, You're completely wrong. I noticed that your newsletter here is up to number five in the world rankings and clearly the soapbox upon which we shall win the next election for our partisans! Thanks again for opening the comments.
I see there are questions about whether this was a speech. Belatedly: No, it's just an unusually long statement that was emailed to reporters and posted on the CPC website. Thanks to everyone for a good discussion.
It is pretty difficult to arrange an appropriate venue and audience to meet your apparent standards for a "speech" where a timely response was required and necessary.
If Poilievre had waited to meet your requirements for a "speech", the criticism would have been where is Poilievre and why is he taking so long to say anything.
I commented on Carney's - calling it a good speech. I think Poilievre's is also a good speech.
Credit to Paul Wells for posting both in full. Others agree - Financial Times Alphaville this morning calls Paul's Carney post "one of the highlights of the week."
Also credit to those of us who actually read (and thought about) both. We are all getting too much of our supposed "information" from short sound bites both created by politicians themselves and edited by others.
Longer forms help. We can decide for ourselves whether we think they are well reasoned or not.
Although I’m a conservative, I have been somewhat critical of what often seems to be Pierre’s, shall we say, limited repertoire, though I believe him to be a decent man with good intentions and positive ideas for Canadians.
This is a refreshing change of tone, and much more like what I want a Conservative leader to be. Canadians can - and should - debate Pierre’s proposals, or their prospective impacts, thoughtfully, but they are reasonable offerings for a struggling country to regain its footing.
Reluctant as I am to give the populist panderer any credit, PP makes solid critiques in his first adult-like speech. His strongest point, and the easiest for MC to fix, is our military's recruiting and equipment disaster. This is especially acute given we have a US commander in chief who uses his military to nakedly expropriate a neighbour's resources, and a US electorate that doesn't care if he does.
We can never trust the Americans again.
But can we trust ourselves to shoot straight?
It takes 9 months for the CAF to hire a private, who needs only a Grade 10 education. Most applicants give up waiting. The few our feckless CAF recruiters manage to get to basic training, which is not hard to pass, then find there is not enough equipment to train with, no sense of mission, and they quit. The personnel shortfall has not changed despite raising salaries.
The equipment shortfall is a mystery in a world awash in military-grade weaponry ready for next day delivery.
Paul Wells recently wrote a sobering piece on how hard it is to even get a building permit, let alone build anything in this country (https://substack.com/@paulwells/p-182385393) - Canada is the worst of 32 in the OECD. I build rental housing in Toronto. I've gotten permits and a building completed in less time than it takes the CAF to hire a soldier and show him how to use a gun.
Our military problem is easier and faster to solve than building oil pipelines. Churchill, King and FDR hired proven business leaders to reform military recruitment, training and procurement. They won.
There is lots of handwringing about the terrible recruitment process in the CAF, but will things ever change for the better when the government is more focused on the equity of the enlistments than assembling a purpose built war machine? (And let's not kid ourselves, armies are not built to rescue civilians from floods or provide backup services on PCH wards.)
WW2 brought Canada to the forefront of international affairs, and we are still resting on those hard earned laurels today. One of the key things organized for the war effort was the flat out, at speeds never seen before building of hangars, runways and the infrastructure to train pilots and navigators for the Commonwealth Air Training Program.
We see the need for urgency, but what is holding us back?
And the newly beefed-up army can ensure that pipelines get built without interference.
Credit where due: Poilievre makes some good points here.
What's with the lame Lord Palmerston quote? Plus, I wish PP would just dispense with the gab and furnish his fellow Canadians with the magic wand he plans to wave once he takes office. We could solve solve all our problems.. what was that word he used... Oh right, "now."
Are you trying to claim Carney wasn't waving a magic wand around last Spring?
No. I am claiming something about PP. Two different people. As Paul would say, reading is hard, I know.
Have a wonderful day, Jim…
Poilievre made some good points. Carney certainly caused a stir, and rightly so. As Poilievre acknowledged, no one can can but applaud the roadmap he’s sketched out for Canada to become more resilient, more diversified and more stand-uppish with other middle powers to the U.S. and China. For that act of defiance alone, he hit his mark.
The danger he and our and other PMs will face is that China reciprocates overtures, and before you know where you are, they have leverage and coercive possibilities that were not visible before. This has become a wow-collaborate - agree-fall out- freeze rinse and return cycle for so many already. Look where Germsnu and the EU, and Thailand are after doing big diversification deals with China: hollowing out of their car industries, for starters. So I hope we will indeed go into these arrangements with eyes open.
What bothered me though was the rhetoric. And whether it betrayed a wekness? He evokes a hero of Czechoslovakian resistance to the communists to draw a parallel with our having lived the lie of the liberal order. I think that’s just bad analogy and an mis-read of Havel. He also does that while embracing Xi jinping who treats his citizens every bit as the Soviets and communists did theirs. I also think Carney’s challenge to rebuild a technocratic and better governance system in the fave of big power bullies. He didn’t need the moral and individual freedom metaphor.