Well, Paul, I couldn't agree more. Private investment has always been timid in this country. Which is why most start ups had to get venture capital money from the US. We are, and always have been, rather risk adverse when it comes to investing in our own country. I still think that Carney's biggest challenge is how he can convince private equity firms, namely Brookfield, to invest in Canadian infrastructure. And I am not just talking about the pipeline. He will need a couple of years to make it happen though.
As for Poilievre, he does not the professional experience or background to achieve much of anything except partisan politics. If the Conservatives are really serious about governing, they have to find a more competent, experienced leader.
We sank so much of what should have been our investment capital into real estate, mergers and aquisitions, and share buy-backs. So did the Americans. We're in an economy where hundreds of billions are being spent on data centre construction but no investements are made building or upgrading refineries to handle shale oil. Instead, that oil is being exported and the Americans are nailing down heavy crude reserves in Venezuela and Alberta. Capital simply isn't going to the right places.
The economic climate is what it is, not only in Canada but around the world. Canadian investors are timid bunch to start with, they also depend too much on Americans to do it all for them and are willing to follow instead of leading. Even now with the US Ambassador stating that his country wishes to reduce Canada to nothing more than Puerto Rico North, some Canadians still believe in our so called friend south of the Border. Many also do not appear to understand that cost of living issues, real estate, etc, cannot be changed by the PM or the Government, we live in a capitalistic market economy, it dictates what happens, unless the Gov implements price and wage controls. As for Mr PP, well even if he wins in January is troubles are far from over, his party would be well advise to retire him and side kick Scheer.
Hogwash. For the past ten years the government has actively discouraged foreign investment in Canada. People in the world who have money to invest have been avoiding Canada because of government over-regulation, inconsistency and policy reversals. Even tax credits and other incentives aren't enough to attract investment because the government is likely to change their mind. Even timid Canadian investors who at one time invested in Canada are rethinking their positions and gradually diversifying around the globe, but mainly to the south.
And the cost of living issues can be changed by the government if they took better care of tax dollars. They need to reduce the waste and mismanagement we read about every day, eliminate deficits and reduce debt and interest payments, which would allow them to reduce taxes which would leave more money in the pockets of Canadians and would lead to more businesses and more jobs. The problem isn't the capitalistic nature of our economy, it is the fact that we have veered towards socialism.
A lot of the problems we have today are a direct result of the last ten years of Liberal government that completely broke our immigrations system and allowed so many people in that government spending to support them added to inflation and put increasing burdens on healthcare and housing, as well as increased deficits and debt.
The reason Liberals and the media hate Mr. Poilievre is because he is the one who has been pointing all of this out and making them look bad.
I really disagree with you. As for the past government and its ten years in Office, a different time and place with different actors. We have a new PM and Government with a different agenda. The past is dead. As for Mr. PP he has nothing to say exempt for slogans and that is really tired.
The PM could’ve focused more on playing nice with the Tories or the Bloc to pass more bills. Instead, he got a major-projects one through while realigning Ottawa away from Washington on defence, foreign policy and the economy. He’s smoothed out relationships with the provinces and transformed the Grits from a centre-left to a centre-right party to stay in step with the vast majority of the electorate. Sure, Canada could use a good decade, but the realist Carney is trying to steer the ship of state safely and swiftly away from the Trump tsunami. The good month may mean little; this impressive track record for a political novice in less than a year should mean a great deal.
Paul, your articles are always thought provoking, and this one stuck with me.
Your observation about the under-utilized tax credit is telling. It points to two plausible issues. Canadian firms often avoid risk rather than manage it. At the same time, governments often design tax credits that are complex, restrictive, slow, and unclear on risk sharing. In that environment, momentum is hard to build.
I agree with you that this is a long game. Productivity gains take a decade, not a budget cycle. That requires better collaboration across governments and with firms that want to build and modernize, not just buy competitors. It also requires a broader comfort with managed risk, across public institutions, investors, and corporate leadership. Without that shift, even well-funded programs will sit unused.
You assert that there are two issues: (1) "... Canadian firms often avoid risk rather than manage it ..." and (2) "... governments often design tax credits that are complex, restrictive, slow, and unclear ..."
I agree with what you say but I suggest that the issue could be looked at differently. Specifically, Canadian firms avoid risk because governments have, through bureaucratic action and inaction, the Income Tax Act, public pronouncements, etc., etc. made it very difficult to clearly understand and predict profitability with any reliability. I am, therefore, somewhat ignoring your first point. Secondly, yes, the tax credits are complex, etc. - that is pretty much indisputable. More importantly, however, the governments (i.e. plural) simply have refused to understand the first point so that their prescriptive tax credits are simply much, much too little, much, much too late.
So, put differently, the governments simply don't understand how incredibly destructive they are and have been and therefore foolishly think that some tinkering around the edges with tax credits is a (remember, I said foolishly) "massive" improvement.
Another point is that culturally, Canadians don't like profitable companies and they oppose companies doing well. So, you decry "timid" whereas I would decry "stupid" public attitudes.
"Even if Mark Carney could get 40 Conservatives to cross the floor, that wouldn’t fix the timid investment climate in this country." Thank you Mr. Wells for leaving your most profound observation for last where it might be best remembered. All grownup Canadians understand what ails this country but unfortunately not many grownup Canadians run for public office.
Check out page 288, Annex 2 of the 2025 federal budget. The government projects that despite only spending $22 million on the clean economy tax credits next fiscal year they will cost $1.5 billion and by 2028-29 the credits should cost the treasury $7.2 billion. The explanation for their optimism might be on page 222. Under the heading "Additional Investments – Creating a More Efficient and Effective Government" we find out CRA needs $23 million to administer the funding of the clean economy tax credits. This might be a failure like the Digital Adoption flop, but I have a feeling giving huge tax credits for investing in clean electricity will by embraced by Canada's biggest investor in clean energy, Brookfield.
On point! Good weeks don't make for good long term results.
The underpinning of the 'good week' is even more tenuous. The regular person is left with a bad taste in their mouth when they watch the enthusiasm of one party celebrate the lack of integrity of someone recently elected under one banner, who voted against their soon to be home party, then come waltzing into the arms of the opposition to be celebrated like some sort of hero, right after doing the conga with the people they were about to 'betray'. These antics don't play well to people's general understanding of 'what's right'. Mr Carney celebrating like he had won some high school popularity contest is something the regular person also doesn't appreciate. They may express it in terms of 'I can't believe we are paying those clowns' rather commenting on the intra-party strategic political outcome of a chance to get a majority. Deep down they know it isn't fair play and on the heels of 'Supply and Confidence' it serves as a reminder of the games the liberal party is willing to play to rule rather than produce the results the country needs.
Mr. Poillievre also needs to go as he can't seem to demonstrate the ability to understand where he went wrong, even if he went of on P&P. He still couldn't answer the Rosemary's direct question of "what did he learn form the last election" and reverted into policy discussions rather than personal reflection.
There is the rub. The Conservative policies seem to continue to resonate with Canadians. Why? Because they are generally sensible and supported by most Canadians, even many centrist liberals, who actually voted for them as Mr Carney pilfered them during the last election and seems now to be leaning towards many of them even as he tries to balance them with the greenist-leftist dogma that occupies a caucus size segment of his party.
The largest problem with this country is we have been governed for the last decade by a political party that will do anything to retain power while engaging in non-sensical policy policy to support causes that objectively do not benefit the country. This to the exclusion of pragmatic policy that actually allows people to thrive. Why would anyone, beyond the activist silly-walkers, want to seriously invest in this country when the chance of success may be undermined by outright policy ridiculousness.
Our problems may have been summarized succinctly by former British High Commissioner to Canada John McMorran Wilson in his 1984 report to the British Foreign Office where he observed: “[T]he calibre of Canadian politicians is low. The level of debate in the House of Commons is correspondingly low: the majority of Canadian ministers are unimpressive and a few we have found frankly bizarre." This seems to be the root problem. We need some change; Mr. Carney is not demonstrating he is it and neither is Mr.Poilievre.
Agree with the bulk of your comment, but partly disagree on your comments about Poilievre. He may have to go, but not because he has done a poor job of exposing Liberal largesse, it's because the Liberal funded mainstream media has slowly brainwashed the electorate into believing that "Poilievre bad!" Mr. Poilievre has done a good job in opposition highlighting Liberal incompetence but his "elbows up" technique has pissed off all those Liberal voters who elected a Prime Minister who promised, but hasn't delivered, the same elbows up strategy.
Good read. But I found Poilievre in his CBC interview particularly incoherent and leaden and not showing Step One reflection mode that you are picking up. No question though, the country needs a better decade. And yes, governing is hard. Many policy tool kits are not fit for 2026, especially R&D and talent policies, despite recent fanfare announcements by ISED ministers.
Not sure what people expect Poilievre to say to the kind of questions Barton asked. He's the opposition leader. His job is to oppose. He is offering what he would do instead. To me, that is what he should do. What's the alternative? What would YOU say he should have said in answer to Barton's questions?
Interesting that all those who pile on the OPPOSITION Leader for opposing the Govt ( that is to say, suggesting better policies), never seem to get around to defining what they think he SHOULD be doing...
Dear Mrs Grundy, look inside yourself Look inside yourself Nobins…I mean, you start from a prior of conflict and ill will. The nadit of incoherence lies with your umm-ahhh non sequitur hero Carney. Barton’s intercourse interruptus interview is not worthy of federal subsidy. She wouldn’t dare treat Carney in the same manner.
Agreed but… Pierre is a good off-the-cuff speaker, but he spoke too much to his bullet talking points. He could have had a decent plainspeak riposte to all her interruptions and whittled her down to size quite nicely.
Trump's NSS says Canada should find economic and defense partners other than the US. Carney's actions? Build High Speed Rail from Montreal to Toronto and lobby Eurovision to join.
We need to get some sort of reasonably priced, fast passenger rail going in the populated areas of the country and restore small-train (the old "Budd car" big bus-on-rail) service to isolated areas. Our highways are getting chewed up as our population grows. Infrastructure should be high on the government's hierarchy of needs. In fact. it used to be one of the few core government priorities, even in ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire.
I fear it will not matter who wins the next election. No party in Canada is competent from a global perspective (unless domestically compared on a sliding scale with each other), and thus will not fix Canada's many symptoms of corruption, decay, and exhaustion.
China, the USA, and perhaps other more competent nations than this one are steadily wearing us down. Eventually carving us up will be their end game, as all we seem to be is a strategically located gigantic bag of natural resources waiting to be exploited.
CP, you say, "No party in Canada is competent from a global perspective ..." I agree with you, but ....
In place of your description of China, the US and "other more competent nations than this one" I suggest that you might consider the word "bold." What I mean is that, yes, Canada needs more competence in government, both at the Parliamentary/Cabinet level and at the bureaucratic level, but what it really needs is a government (and it's supporting bureaucracy) that is willing to undertake bold ideas that may or may not be popular and that may cost it some political support but which are unquestionably good for the COUNTRY, not specifically good only for the Party.
I simply do not expect that Canada will elect any government such as I have described but will instead keep electing the Lilliputians that we have allowed to govern us for so long.
It is for that reason that I am willing to listen to those who call for my province of Alberta to leave the wreck that is Canada. To what end? I don't know, but that is what I am hoping to hear in my listening.
In the spirit of the season, I would like to point out that from amidst the ashes of The Lost Singh-Trudeau Decade their Canada Dental Care Plan is making a life-changing difference to many people who previously went without. Dental care is healthcare and this system update in my opinion was long overdue.
But at some point we have to ask: "can we afford this?"
$10 daycare,
Dental care,
Pharmacare,
Green slush fund,
School lunches,
Gun buyback,
Major projects office,
Build Homes Canada,
New military procurement office
The reality is that all of these new programs cost money, and we all make decisions every day with our own household budgets that include the question "can we afford this?" so why don't we hold politicians to the same standard.
The gun buyback program is a classic example of Liberal virtue signalling. They are going to spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, on a ridiculous program that will help no-one while ignoring the real problem of illegal guns brought in for gang crime and violence. But they don't care because the money is not theirs and it may buy them a few votes.
“So there you have it,” economic journalist Henry Hazlitt replied sarcastically in his 1959 book, The Failure of the ‘New Economics’. “The people who have earned money are too shortsighted, hysterical, rapacious and idiotic to be trusted to invest it themselves. The money must be seized from them by politicians, who will invest it with almost perfect foresight and complete disinterestedness (as illustrated, for example, by the economic planners of Soviet Russia). For people who are risking their own money will of course risk it foolishly and recklessly, whereas politicians and bureaucrats who are risking other people’s money will do so only with the greatest care and after long and profound study.”
Yes, and the dental plan for one is far from “universal” to anyone who at some time “had access to” some other plan but didn’t accept that, or an existing plan that is denied top-up. Don’t get me going on PharmaCare or the $10 daycare scam that has closed access to many.
Your observation about Trudeau and Singh was spot on, they were only concerned about their personal situations and couldn't care less about the country. As far as the source of Andrew Scheer's pay check goes, that statement applies to most parliamentarians as well as wide swath of Canadians as well.
And it seems to me that Mark Carney and the Liberals got elected on a platform of "elbows up," but they seem to really resent that Poilievre has kept his elbows up, as has Donald Trump for that matter. Obviously just another case of saying one thing to get elected, and then doing the exact opposite, which is maybe what the Conservatives will have to do during the next election.
Sorry, but the Canadian media (and therefore voting public) by and large does NOT allow that sort of behaviour from Conservatives, at least, not federally.
I've been saying this all through Carney's honeymoon period - a theoretical Poilievre government which had done and said all the same things we've experienced from the Carney government since the election would have already gone down in flames under the weight of accusations of "capitulating to Trump" and for failure to turn the economy around on a dime.
Conservatives are expected to do EXACTLY what they promised, and are harshly taken to task for deviating from their promises, no matter what circumstances they encounter along the way.
Conversely, Liberals are allowed to completely ignore the promises they make during elections, and in fact get praised for their agility and ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
This may "sound" like sour grapes, but it is sadly VERY historically accurate.
"If your entire selling proposition was that you understood the real country better than those insular Liberals, why on Earth would your main lieutenant be the Opposition House Leader who would melt like the Witch of the West if he ever saw a paycheque that didn’t have a maple-leaf watermark?" Delightful. Thank you.
I am curious why the private sector is not taking the government up on its incentives to do ostensibly great things. It could be the programs are wrong, or not trusted, or a thousand other reasons, but I am reminded of Brian Mulroney, who campaigned on the need for Canada to do more R and D (kind of like these programs) and then in government could not get the private sector to bite, at least not as much as they hoped. Easier just to export to the US rather than raise productivity, I guess? Maybe we need a new royal commission to do some serious investigating.
I've come to believe competition is a big missing piece of the puzzle, and that government hasn't been introspective enough about how horrifying the prospect of "partnering with government" is for most businesses.
I certainly agree that more competition is desirable in so many industries, but ....
I very much believe that many companies would like to take advantage of the various tax credits but the process to do so is typically convoluted, bureaucratic, time consuming and, while free bucks are useful, the process ignores the real problems of industry that the governments have put in front of businesses in Canada.
Just as one example, the Income Tax Act [I am a retired accountant so I have some modest knowledge of the ITA] is very convoluted and is oriented in ways that encourage unproductive actions. Further, our competitors [dare I refer to a southern competitor?] give encouragement that very much benefits businesses. Example: fast write-off of a lot of business investment in the US; Canada has historically had SOME kinda fast write-off but it has been limited and not always as fast and certainly not as accessible as advertised.
Quite frankly, the ITA is archaic and needs terribly badly to be completely renovated. But that won't happen as too many politically friendly oxen would be gored. Our tax structure is itself a deterrent to investment and ongoing economic activity.
Further, Canadians are hopelessly into jealousy when a business takes advantage of those tax credits. Do you recall the uproar when Loblaws got (I think) $12 million in tax credits for new coolers? Or the uproar many years ago at Imperial Oil's "obscene" profits? There are, of course, many other examples but I offer those two. Other countries CELEBRATE corporate success; not so in Canada.
Well, Paul, I couldn't agree more. Private investment has always been timid in this country. Which is why most start ups had to get venture capital money from the US. We are, and always have been, rather risk adverse when it comes to investing in our own country. I still think that Carney's biggest challenge is how he can convince private equity firms, namely Brookfield, to invest in Canadian infrastructure. And I am not just talking about the pipeline. He will need a couple of years to make it happen though.
As for Poilievre, he does not the professional experience or background to achieve much of anything except partisan politics. If the Conservatives are really serious about governing, they have to find a more competent, experienced leader.
We sank so much of what should have been our investment capital into real estate, mergers and aquisitions, and share buy-backs. So did the Americans. We're in an economy where hundreds of billions are being spent on data centre construction but no investements are made building or upgrading refineries to handle shale oil. Instead, that oil is being exported and the Americans are nailing down heavy crude reserves in Venezuela and Alberta. Capital simply isn't going to the right places.
The economic climate is what it is, not only in Canada but around the world. Canadian investors are timid bunch to start with, they also depend too much on Americans to do it all for them and are willing to follow instead of leading. Even now with the US Ambassador stating that his country wishes to reduce Canada to nothing more than Puerto Rico North, some Canadians still believe in our so called friend south of the Border. Many also do not appear to understand that cost of living issues, real estate, etc, cannot be changed by the PM or the Government, we live in a capitalistic market economy, it dictates what happens, unless the Gov implements price and wage controls. As for Mr PP, well even if he wins in January is troubles are far from over, his party would be well advise to retire him and side kick Scheer.
Hogwash. For the past ten years the government has actively discouraged foreign investment in Canada. People in the world who have money to invest have been avoiding Canada because of government over-regulation, inconsistency and policy reversals. Even tax credits and other incentives aren't enough to attract investment because the government is likely to change their mind. Even timid Canadian investors who at one time invested in Canada are rethinking their positions and gradually diversifying around the globe, but mainly to the south.
And the cost of living issues can be changed by the government if they took better care of tax dollars. They need to reduce the waste and mismanagement we read about every day, eliminate deficits and reduce debt and interest payments, which would allow them to reduce taxes which would leave more money in the pockets of Canadians and would lead to more businesses and more jobs. The problem isn't the capitalistic nature of our economy, it is the fact that we have veered towards socialism.
A lot of the problems we have today are a direct result of the last ten years of Liberal government that completely broke our immigrations system and allowed so many people in that government spending to support them added to inflation and put increasing burdens on healthcare and housing, as well as increased deficits and debt.
The reason Liberals and the media hate Mr. Poilievre is because he is the one who has been pointing all of this out and making them look bad.
I really disagree with you. As for the past government and its ten years in Office, a different time and place with different actors. We have a new PM and Government with a different agenda. The past is dead. As for Mr. PP he has nothing to say exempt for slogans and that is really tired.
The past is never dead, it just changes clothes.
Oh my, you mean change is never possible? That is a bleak view.
"Carney was elected so the past is dead" is not a serious argument. It’s wishful thinking. I’m done here.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/danielle-smith-says-shes-open-to-shipping-oil-to-pacific-via-u-s-northwest
Scalpels. “This is like the step before Step One in the Twelve Steps” and “one quarter of one percent.” Bravo.
The PM could’ve focused more on playing nice with the Tories or the Bloc to pass more bills. Instead, he got a major-projects one through while realigning Ottawa away from Washington on defence, foreign policy and the economy. He’s smoothed out relationships with the provinces and transformed the Grits from a centre-left to a centre-right party to stay in step with the vast majority of the electorate. Sure, Canada could use a good decade, but the realist Carney is trying to steer the ship of state safely and swiftly away from the Trump tsunami. The good month may mean little; this impressive track record for a political novice in less than a year should mean a great deal.
Paul, your articles are always thought provoking, and this one stuck with me.
Your observation about the under-utilized tax credit is telling. It points to two plausible issues. Canadian firms often avoid risk rather than manage it. At the same time, governments often design tax credits that are complex, restrictive, slow, and unclear on risk sharing. In that environment, momentum is hard to build.
I agree with you that this is a long game. Productivity gains take a decade, not a budget cycle. That requires better collaboration across governments and with firms that want to build and modernize, not just buy competitors. It also requires a broader comfort with managed risk, across public institutions, investors, and corporate leadership. Without that shift, even well-funded programs will sit unused.
You assert that there are two issues: (1) "... Canadian firms often avoid risk rather than manage it ..." and (2) "... governments often design tax credits that are complex, restrictive, slow, and unclear ..."
I agree with what you say but I suggest that the issue could be looked at differently. Specifically, Canadian firms avoid risk because governments have, through bureaucratic action and inaction, the Income Tax Act, public pronouncements, etc., etc. made it very difficult to clearly understand and predict profitability with any reliability. I am, therefore, somewhat ignoring your first point. Secondly, yes, the tax credits are complex, etc. - that is pretty much indisputable. More importantly, however, the governments (i.e. plural) simply have refused to understand the first point so that their prescriptive tax credits are simply much, much too little, much, much too late.
So, put differently, the governments simply don't understand how incredibly destructive they are and have been and therefore foolishly think that some tinkering around the edges with tax credits is a (remember, I said foolishly) "massive" improvement.
Another point is that culturally, Canadians don't like profitable companies and they oppose companies doing well. So, you decry "timid" whereas I would decry "stupid" public attitudes.
"Even if Mark Carney could get 40 Conservatives to cross the floor, that wouldn’t fix the timid investment climate in this country." Thank you Mr. Wells for leaving your most profound observation for last where it might be best remembered. All grownup Canadians understand what ails this country but unfortunately not many grownup Canadians run for public office.
Check out page 288, Annex 2 of the 2025 federal budget. The government projects that despite only spending $22 million on the clean economy tax credits next fiscal year they will cost $1.5 billion and by 2028-29 the credits should cost the treasury $7.2 billion. The explanation for their optimism might be on page 222. Under the heading "Additional Investments – Creating a More Efficient and Effective Government" we find out CRA needs $23 million to administer the funding of the clean economy tax credits. This might be a failure like the Digital Adoption flop, but I have a feeling giving huge tax credits for investing in clean electricity will by embraced by Canada's biggest investor in clean energy, Brookfield.
On point! Good weeks don't make for good long term results.
The underpinning of the 'good week' is even more tenuous. The regular person is left with a bad taste in their mouth when they watch the enthusiasm of one party celebrate the lack of integrity of someone recently elected under one banner, who voted against their soon to be home party, then come waltzing into the arms of the opposition to be celebrated like some sort of hero, right after doing the conga with the people they were about to 'betray'. These antics don't play well to people's general understanding of 'what's right'. Mr Carney celebrating like he had won some high school popularity contest is something the regular person also doesn't appreciate. They may express it in terms of 'I can't believe we are paying those clowns' rather commenting on the intra-party strategic political outcome of a chance to get a majority. Deep down they know it isn't fair play and on the heels of 'Supply and Confidence' it serves as a reminder of the games the liberal party is willing to play to rule rather than produce the results the country needs.
Mr. Poillievre also needs to go as he can't seem to demonstrate the ability to understand where he went wrong, even if he went of on P&P. He still couldn't answer the Rosemary's direct question of "what did he learn form the last election" and reverted into policy discussions rather than personal reflection.
There is the rub. The Conservative policies seem to continue to resonate with Canadians. Why? Because they are generally sensible and supported by most Canadians, even many centrist liberals, who actually voted for them as Mr Carney pilfered them during the last election and seems now to be leaning towards many of them even as he tries to balance them with the greenist-leftist dogma that occupies a caucus size segment of his party.
The largest problem with this country is we have been governed for the last decade by a political party that will do anything to retain power while engaging in non-sensical policy policy to support causes that objectively do not benefit the country. This to the exclusion of pragmatic policy that actually allows people to thrive. Why would anyone, beyond the activist silly-walkers, want to seriously invest in this country when the chance of success may be undermined by outright policy ridiculousness.
Our problems may have been summarized succinctly by former British High Commissioner to Canada John McMorran Wilson in his 1984 report to the British Foreign Office where he observed: “[T]he calibre of Canadian politicians is low. The level of debate in the House of Commons is correspondingly low: the majority of Canadian ministers are unimpressive and a few we have found frankly bizarre." This seems to be the root problem. We need some change; Mr. Carney is not demonstrating he is it and neither is Mr.Poilievre.
Agree with the bulk of your comment, but partly disagree on your comments about Poilievre. He may have to go, but not because he has done a poor job of exposing Liberal largesse, it's because the Liberal funded mainstream media has slowly brainwashed the electorate into believing that "Poilievre bad!" Mr. Poilievre has done a good job in opposition highlighting Liberal incompetence but his "elbows up" technique has pissed off all those Liberal voters who elected a Prime Minister who promised, but hasn't delivered, the same elbows up strategy.
Come now. He's been around for a quarter-century. Brainwashing not necessary, just eyes and ears.
Obviously a lot of people have a problem with their eyes and ears, they elected Justin Trudeau three times ffs.
Good read. But I found Poilievre in his CBC interview particularly incoherent and leaden and not showing Step One reflection mode that you are picking up. No question though, the country needs a better decade. And yes, governing is hard. Many policy tool kits are not fit for 2026, especially R&D and talent policies, despite recent fanfare announcements by ISED ministers.
Not sure what people expect Poilievre to say to the kind of questions Barton asked. He's the opposition leader. His job is to oppose. He is offering what he would do instead. To me, that is what he should do. What's the alternative? What would YOU say he should have said in answer to Barton's questions?
Interesting that all those who pile on the OPPOSITION Leader for opposing the Govt ( that is to say, suggesting better policies), never seem to get around to defining what they think he SHOULD be doing...
Dear Mrs Grundy, look inside yourself Look inside yourself Nobins…I mean, you start from a prior of conflict and ill will. The nadit of incoherence lies with your umm-ahhh non sequitur hero Carney. Barton’s intercourse interruptus interview is not worthy of federal subsidy. She wouldn’t dare treat Carney in the same manner.
Agreed but… Pierre is a good off-the-cuff speaker, but he spoke too much to his bullet talking points. He could have had a decent plainspeak riposte to all her interruptions and whittled her down to size quite nicely.
Trump's NSS says Canada should find economic and defense partners other than the US. Carney's actions? Build High Speed Rail from Montreal to Toronto and lobby Eurovision to join.
I've been wondering where on Maslow's hierarchy high-speed rail sits.
We need to get some sort of reasonably priced, fast passenger rail going in the populated areas of the country and restore small-train (the old "Budd car" big bus-on-rail) service to isolated areas. Our highways are getting chewed up as our population grows. Infrastructure should be high on the government's hierarchy of needs. In fact. it used to be one of the few core government priorities, even in ancient Egypt and the Roman Empire.
Great column, as always.
I fear it will not matter who wins the next election. No party in Canada is competent from a global perspective (unless domestically compared on a sliding scale with each other), and thus will not fix Canada's many symptoms of corruption, decay, and exhaustion.
China, the USA, and perhaps other more competent nations than this one are steadily wearing us down. Eventually carving us up will be their end game, as all we seem to be is a strategically located gigantic bag of natural resources waiting to be exploited.
Happy Monday!
CP, you say, "No party in Canada is competent from a global perspective ..." I agree with you, but ....
In place of your description of China, the US and "other more competent nations than this one" I suggest that you might consider the word "bold." What I mean is that, yes, Canada needs more competence in government, both at the Parliamentary/Cabinet level and at the bureaucratic level, but what it really needs is a government (and it's supporting bureaucracy) that is willing to undertake bold ideas that may or may not be popular and that may cost it some political support but which are unquestionably good for the COUNTRY, not specifically good only for the Party.
I simply do not expect that Canada will elect any government such as I have described but will instead keep electing the Lilliputians that we have allowed to govern us for so long.
It is for that reason that I am willing to listen to those who call for my province of Alberta to leave the wreck that is Canada. To what end? I don't know, but that is what I am hoping to hear in my listening.
Lets hope for the former so we don't have to resort to the latter, Ken.
Best of the season to you!
Kelly
In the spirit of the season, I would like to point out that from amidst the ashes of The Lost Singh-Trudeau Decade their Canada Dental Care Plan is making a life-changing difference to many people who previously went without. Dental care is healthcare and this system update in my opinion was long overdue.
But at some point we have to ask: "can we afford this?"
$10 daycare,
Dental care,
Pharmacare,
Green slush fund,
School lunches,
Gun buyback,
Major projects office,
Build Homes Canada,
New military procurement office
The reality is that all of these new programs cost money, and we all make decisions every day with our own household budgets that include the question "can we afford this?" so why don't we hold politicians to the same standard.
The gun buyback program is a classic example of Liberal virtue signalling. They are going to spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, on a ridiculous program that will help no-one while ignoring the real problem of illegal guns brought in for gang crime and violence. But they don't care because the money is not theirs and it may buy them a few votes.
“So there you have it,” economic journalist Henry Hazlitt replied sarcastically in his 1959 book, The Failure of the ‘New Economics’. “The people who have earned money are too shortsighted, hysterical, rapacious and idiotic to be trusted to invest it themselves. The money must be seized from them by politicians, who will invest it with almost perfect foresight and complete disinterestedness (as illustrated, for example, by the economic planners of Soviet Russia). For people who are risking their own money will of course risk it foolishly and recklessly, whereas politicians and bureaucrats who are risking other people’s money will do so only with the greatest care and after long and profound study.”
Yes, and the dental plan for one is far from “universal” to anyone who at some time “had access to” some other plan but didn’t accept that, or an existing plan that is denied top-up. Don’t get me going on PharmaCare or the $10 daycare scam that has closed access to many.
Your observation about Trudeau and Singh was spot on, they were only concerned about their personal situations and couldn't care less about the country. As far as the source of Andrew Scheer's pay check goes, that statement applies to most parliamentarians as well as wide swath of Canadians as well.
And it seems to me that Mark Carney and the Liberals got elected on a platform of "elbows up," but they seem to really resent that Poilievre has kept his elbows up, as has Donald Trump for that matter. Obviously just another case of saying one thing to get elected, and then doing the exact opposite, which is maybe what the Conservatives will have to do during the next election.
Sorry, but the Canadian media (and therefore voting public) by and large does NOT allow that sort of behaviour from Conservatives, at least, not federally.
I've been saying this all through Carney's honeymoon period - a theoretical Poilievre government which had done and said all the same things we've experienced from the Carney government since the election would have already gone down in flames under the weight of accusations of "capitulating to Trump" and for failure to turn the economy around on a dime.
Conservatives are expected to do EXACTLY what they promised, and are harshly taken to task for deviating from their promises, no matter what circumstances they encounter along the way.
Conversely, Liberals are allowed to completely ignore the promises they make during elections, and in fact get praised for their agility and ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
This may "sound" like sour grapes, but it is sadly VERY historically accurate.
"If your entire selling proposition was that you understood the real country better than those insular Liberals, why on Earth would your main lieutenant be the Opposition House Leader who would melt like the Witch of the West if he ever saw a paycheque that didn’t have a maple-leaf watermark?" Delightful. Thank you.
I am curious why the private sector is not taking the government up on its incentives to do ostensibly great things. It could be the programs are wrong, or not trusted, or a thousand other reasons, but I am reminded of Brian Mulroney, who campaigned on the need for Canada to do more R and D (kind of like these programs) and then in government could not get the private sector to bite, at least not as much as they hoped. Easier just to export to the US rather than raise productivity, I guess? Maybe we need a new royal commission to do some serious investigating.
I've come to believe competition is a big missing piece of the puzzle, and that government hasn't been introspective enough about how horrifying the prospect of "partnering with government" is for most businesses.
I certainly agree that more competition is desirable in so many industries, but ....
I very much believe that many companies would like to take advantage of the various tax credits but the process to do so is typically convoluted, bureaucratic, time consuming and, while free bucks are useful, the process ignores the real problems of industry that the governments have put in front of businesses in Canada.
Just as one example, the Income Tax Act [I am a retired accountant so I have some modest knowledge of the ITA] is very convoluted and is oriented in ways that encourage unproductive actions. Further, our competitors [dare I refer to a southern competitor?] give encouragement that very much benefits businesses. Example: fast write-off of a lot of business investment in the US; Canada has historically had SOME kinda fast write-off but it has been limited and not always as fast and certainly not as accessible as advertised.
Quite frankly, the ITA is archaic and needs terribly badly to be completely renovated. But that won't happen as too many politically friendly oxen would be gored. Our tax structure is itself a deterrent to investment and ongoing economic activity.
Further, Canadians are hopelessly into jealousy when a business takes advantage of those tax credits. Do you recall the uproar when Loblaws got (I think) $12 million in tax credits for new coolers? Or the uproar many years ago at Imperial Oil's "obscene" profits? There are, of course, many other examples but I offer those two. Other countries CELEBRATE corporate success; not so in Canada.
A decade of voting for Trudeau will do that .
I think you’re right about the easy money made selling to the world’s richest country next door. That’s got to be part of the answer.
I wouldn't commit to any investment whose payback horizon is beyond the next change of government.