244 Comments
User's avatar
Liz Allan's avatar

“The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.” PM Mark Carney

I am proud that my country took this stance, called out the US bully and provided an optimistic and pragmatic way forward.

Liz Allan's avatar

I am prepared to see my income tax increase, increased tax on gas etc, rationing similar to during WWII. You?

Liz Allan's avatar

PM Mark Carney in Davos at World Economic Forum

“The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.”

I am proud that my country took this stance, called out the US bully and provided an optimistic and pragmatic way forward.

Craig Yirush's avatar

But he didn’t even name Trump!

S. Martin's avatar

Yes, I found that odd, awkward, and sort of silly (AKA disingenuous).... "He who cannot be named", lol. No one in the know would be fooled by that, so why talk around the issue? What is to be gained?

Ian MacRae's avatar

What price will you be willing to pay to "build our strength at home"? Most Canadians won't pay anything more for the improved military, health and education needed to build our strength.

Wayne Wood's avatar

You don’t speak for most Canadians.

Gord Lambert's avatar

I am a boomer and I take deep pride in the sacrifices made by my grandfather and so many others who engaged in national building for our benefit by putting their lives on the line. Those that are entitled and take the stance of “victims”, piss on the graves of those that sacrificed and deserve to rot in hell. Nation building is hard. Being an entitled victim is the lowest common denominator.

Ian MacRae's avatar

Nope, never claimed that. I'm a retired Boomer who has benefited from all the goodies like cheap post-secondary education, ample job opportunities and comparatively inexpensive housing when I got on the ladder.

My two Millennial daughters and my Gen ?? grandaughter will enjoy reduced government benefits and services because, some day, the investors who buy our bonds will say enough and demand a much higher interest rate. That jump in interest expense will finally stop our government from continuing to write NSF cheques. You may need to ask your parents what those are.

Liz Allan's avatar

As opposed to relative freedom of movement, speech, etc. that we currently enjoy and yes pay for. Perhaps expectations need to fit the reality of the world we live in, not the one we would like to live in.

Eric McGoey's avatar

An excellent speech. Maybe Carney's best since the election campaign, not that I read all of them. The challenge, as always, will be living up to it, but it strikes me as the articulation of a vision that many people in Canada and beyond can get behind. Loved the Havel quotes and analysis.

Maire's avatar

I'm crushing on the brilliant writing.

"...if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."

Judy Millar's avatar

It's often heard in business. There are many citations of this phrase, and variations of it, dating back to 1993 (e.g., Senator Elizabeth Warren, 2014, and politician Ann Richards, 2017). That doesn't take away from how apt its use was in this instance. Loved it!

Colin Pratt's avatar

Bravo Carnage/Xi. Carney picked up his Davos speech from Xi and duly delivered it. Meanwhile Xi is saying - Great reading of my words

Jordan Furlong's avatar

Well, that was pretty fantastic.

The obvious subtext was about Trump, and if he was capable of understanding it, he’d probably get upset. But the real target audience here is Europe – calling them out for their timidity and vacillation, poking them in their conscience by repeatedly quoting Vaclav Havel, and setting out Canada‘s approach as one they could and ought to follow.

This could potentially go down as one of the most important Canadian political speeches ever made. I’ll be intrigued to read the analysis and, more importantly, watch the blowback.

Cheryl Robinson's avatar

It’s possible the “subtext” was in fact China

Jordan Furlong's avatar

Absolutely -- you can "read in" China or even Russia in a few places. Every country that's acceded to Chinese investment or signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative would read "Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited" and think of Beijing before Washington. And Ukraine got the memo about the end of the "rules-based international order" earlier than anyone.

I've already seen criticism that Carney was too indirect and discreet in these remarks. But I think the most valuable point he's making in this speech is: "Stop pretending!" The old order is gone, and your nostalgic yearning for it is going to cost lives. As Sinatra, no fan of Trump, would have put it: Wake up to reality.

Penny Leifson's avatar

I do believe it was both, plus Russia. (EDIT: I “want to” believe that)

Ian MacRae's avatar

The subtext should include a mirror. Canada has been timid and unwilling to speak truth to Trump/Xi/Putin.

J.D.M. Stewart's avatar

There is much to compliment in this speech, but off the top I would say it has been a long time since I have seen a speech from a PM that quoted Thucydides and Vaclav Havel which, at least from the point of view of rhetoric, is very welcome. This speech is the hugely important sequel to Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent's Gray Lecture. I predict it will be as quoted in the future as St. Laurent's address has been since he gave it 1947 (while he was Secretary of State for External Affairs).The remarks have a gravitas that has been missing from Canada's foreign affairs and speech writing for more than a decade.

--J.D.M. Stewart

Richard Gimblett's avatar

Agreed, especially like the refs as I have recently dipped into both Thucydides and LSL’s Gray Lecture. I am scribbling an essay on naval strategy, and hoping this address today might become the building block for a Canadian grand national strategy, which we have been lacking for, well, just about forever. But of course the prof will be in the follow-through. Good luck to him!

BTW admire your great new book on the PMs!

Edward Peter McKinney's avatar

I am in the process of reading it as well. It is very good I have a number of biographies including the War Lords which i loved. I recently read a King biography by Allan Levine. What an eye opener, for me at least Canadian History is fascinating . Thank you for your book!

Ken Pettigrew's avatar

Just this morning my old guys group that gathers weekly to save the world was saying that someone at Davos needs to call out the Emperor for having no clothes …it seems that our Mr. Carney has done that and done it very well indeed. It is a brave statement and one that I hope other middle power countries will support. Like Liz Allan, I too am proud that Canada has taken this stance at long last. Thank you for sharing this text, it will be interesting to see what happens next

Raymond Brassard's avatar

A bold move, but honest and truthful. Two immediate thoughts: how many middle powers will take the sign out of the window? and, at this moment, I’m grateful he is my green grocer.

Paula Mallea's avatar

He is unquestionably the right leader for this moment.

Will Jeffrey's avatar

This stands out, "...if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."

Doug Girvin's avatar

My more blunt favourite is ‘have lunch or be lunch’. I so hope we can stop bickering and get on with the vision in this speech. Change management 101: people will change when the pain of changing is less than the pain of staying where they are. Let’s hope we don’t ’be lunch’ before the pain/reality is sufficient to get moving beyond what our government is doing.

Timothy Comeau's avatar

As the kids would say: 'cooked' vs 'cooking' "You’re either in the pot or you’re holding it”.

Martin Kennedy's avatar

What an extraordinary moment. Thanks for sharing the full text.

Will Murray's avatar

I thought he did well. The speech, of course, is the easy part. What comes next is tougher. One thing that had been made clear, especially of late, is that keeping our head down and trying to take as little shrapnel as possible and wait out the next three years is untenable. Because each day between now and then will be worse than the one before. His grievances drive him and they change by the day or by whatever he’s watching on TV. Placating hasn’t and will never work. You’ve got to find a new way forward. I have no idea what that is of course. Thankfully that’s for better minds than I.

Aiden Martin's avatar

"We cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination." What a line.

Jim Woodgett's avatar

So, is the F-35 is now toast?

Edison Stewart's avatar

In my opinion, yes. There are some who think the purchase will just be delayed until the CUSMA review is done, but as the speech implies, if not says outright, one cannot rely on deals with a hegemon. Which means, at best, postponing the rest of the purchase until Trump is gone (three years). Gripen, here we come.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jan 20
Comment deleted
Jim Woodgett's avatar

While drone warfare is certainly the new reality for hot wars (see Justin Ling's latest piece on Substack), the sheer surface area of the north is impossible to cover through FPV drones. Maybe Predator-like autonomous systems. I don't see any middle power divesting of fighter capability. The divorce will be acrimonious whether we like it or not and so it's not even clear to me we are seen as clients. Trump being Trump, he'll jack up the price.

Denis McKee's avatar

In the three years of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I can count on one hand the number of news reports which mention fighter aircraft. Modern wars seem to depend on drones and missiles as well as troops on the battlefields. Spending billions on aircraft designed 25 years ago indicates that our military leaders are still fighting the Korean and Vietnamese wars.

Connie Craddock's avatar

A wonderful speech. Carney should share these thoughts with Canadians. We need to hear more from him directly about a possible way forward in these terrible times.

Cynthia Rurak's avatar

Hear. Hear. Canadians I believe are hungry for this kind of leadership and message; we’ve been waiting ever since we elected Carney for this moment. So, yeah, Mr. Carney, please turn your sights to we, the people of Canada, and deliver the words we need to hear.

Aidan's avatar

This speech strikes me as most significant in who it is being spoken to: I'd wager that most of the room at Davos is still at least flirting with the "knuckle under and lick boot until a normal President is in the White House" approach (if not embracing it outright), and it seems like a laser-focused effort to communicate to the room that that is no longer a viable strategy.

Nic Boshart's avatar

I think most world leaders get the idea— the fragility of the US system has been laid bare. What Trump's done is show what is possible and broken norms that were fundamental policy that upheld the US system. "Return to normal" is no longer a scenario that any country can rely on with the US and likely won't unless there are strong actions taken - impeachment, Supreme Court overhaul, likely constitutional amendment weakening presidential powers. We could have an even-keeled democrat in the White House for 8 years but then what? No one has any guarantee that a trade deal or even peace agreement will last more than four years.

New Prairie Review's avatar

Carney at Davos: "We know the old order is not coming back." He's putting Canada on the front foot and reiterates that the Canadian government has the fiscal capacity to build what we need to preserve our sovereignty.

Ian MacRae's avatar

Carney's fiscal capacity is an overdraft lie. We have burned our children's; and grandchildren's fiscal capacity.

New Prairie Review's avatar

Canada Government debt accounted for 69.3 % of the country's Nominal GDP in Mar 2025. The data reached an all-time high of 83.6 % in Mar 1996.

Rob Weetman's avatar

This whole Greenland issue reminds me of the sudentanland and Chamberlain.

Honestly, I think we should send a battalion of PPCLI to Greenland. Armed to the teeth.

Will they be able to stop a determined American attack? Of course not.

But it would then up the cost of any American miscalculation. Something needs to be done to snap the Americans out of this funk there in.

Trust me.

When CNN shows live pictures of a long line of a famed grim well armed Canadian battalion slowly trailing out of a C17 in Greenland the shit will hit the fan down there.

Sure Trump will yell and throw things and post on Truth Social all about 50 percent tariffs..blah blah

Who cares?

Either we take a stand now and stop this nonsense or its just going to continue.

Jerry Grant's avatar

Who is Chamberlain in this case? Trump or Xi? They both want Greenland, and China is one separation plebiscite away from getting it.

Rob Weetman's avatar

Hmmm. I think you need to brush up on your history.

Chamberlain would be Carney and the rest of the EU leaders mouthing platitudes instead of actually doing something meaningful.

That battalion of PPCLI should also he given a R.O.E that basically says shoot first and ask questions later.

Ian MacRae's avatar

Another suggestion for an army unit is the 166th (Newfoundland) Field Artillery Regiment. They are physically adjacent to Greenland and, if our air transport proves incapable of moving them, I'm sure a fleet of long-liners could be found to transport them. Dunkirk in reverse,

Jerry Grant's avatar

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Brian Kappler's avatar

Send a battalion? We couldn’t find a corporal’s guard. And they’d have rusty WW II popguns.

Rob Weetman's avatar

Stop believing everything you read. You are embarrassing yourself.

We absolutely do have the ability to deploy a well armed battalion.

Ian MacRae's avatar

Absolutely agree !! Let's also send a frigate and a CF-18 squadron. Both will draw chuckles from US generals but international opinion will be loud and positive.

Joanna Gray's avatar

I remain sceptical. It’s a good speech, perhaps a great one. But I see nothing concrete anywhere. I see Carney flying all over the world, agreeing to further discussions, making pledges to ‘further cooperation’, MOUs, etc. However nothing has changed here in the country. All the problems that existed before Carney took office are still there. There has been no “building faster than we’ve ever seen before”. I do understand that turning the ship around (if that is indeed what Carney is trying to do) will take longer than we want it to, but I feel he should be spending more time dealing with our domestic situation—our somewhat fractured confederation—than hobnobbing with the leaders of Qatar. It’s true that we’re blessed with vast quantities of natural resources, but we’ve spent the last ten years or more tying ourselves up in so much regulatory red tape that it will take years to bring much of it to market. How is that inability to build anything of value going to help us in this “new world order”? Fine words, but I’d really like to see some action.

I also find Carney’s ability to say one thing one day and something else entirely two months later disconcerting, to say the least.

Erwin Dreessen's avatar

Patience, Joanna, patience.

gs's avatar

He didn't run on "have patience", he ran on "I'm the instant action guy".

Erwin Dreessen's avatar

Well, it would be naive to expect "instant action" given the goals that the Carney government has set. "Act fast" perhaps. He's done not badly so far, and has managed Trump admirably as well. His speech in Davos is a welcome 'backgrounder' to his thinking.

Ken Schultz's avatar

Okay, Erwin, by your standard I am naive.

He ran on a program and it seemed to me unlikely that he could do it but I did expect that he would try to do it. Actually, I think he has done badly. All talk and, really, no damned action.

Rene Wells's avatar

There are some in this country, Erwin, who have been patient for the last ten years - in this, our last decade - waiting for changes in Ottawa. Some, not seeing the changes they need, are patiently gathering signatures for a petition to secede.

Meanwhile, the jet setting PM, known for his disdain of the drudgery that is Parliament, has only demonstrated his penchant for accumulating air mile points.

Joanna is correct. We need action - not words, MOU's, and regulatory red tape...

S. Martin's avatar

Bingo! Joanna. I suspect that for many people, Carney's speech came across as wise, sophisticated and almost messianic, making it easy to ignore its lack of substance. He sounded so very sure of his ability to analyse the present, predict the future and know how to go forward. This kind of confidence makes me uncomfortable. I am suspicious of his motives and just who will benefit from his blue-print for the future, should he manage to carry it out.

His lies during the run up to the election last year really bothered me, as they were easily fact-checkable (is that a word?). It suggested to me a sense of personal exceptionalism and arrogance that was off-putting. The legacy media (and others) did not seem to challenge him. He was given a pass.

It is always possible that I have misjudged him, but that hasn't been my experience over eight decades of life. Usually I am a pretty accurate judge of character. However, I will be relieved if I am wrong.

Whatever Carney is up to, I just hope that I am not left poor, hungry, sick and cold in the dark while he pursues his aspirations and "Values".

(BTW. I think that almost all politicians are suspect. None of them should get a pass.)

mela's avatar

I thought the China trip was exactly about "dealing with our domestic situation - our somewhat fractured confederation" as you put it. What better way to address Prairie issues than to do a deal for their agricultural products?

Da Da Canada's avatar

Immediate repeal of c69 and approval of an oil export terminus as a matter of national interest?