A great read (just like Axworthy's memoir) although the former foreign minister seems too unsympathetic to the challenges confronting the current PM. To stay in office when facing an existential economic threat from its noxious neighbour, prioritizing building tighter relations with trading partners old (UK) and new (Indonesia) makes sense. Once/if the economy stabilizes, then pivot to other important issues, albeit ones that matter less to Canadian voters, like the Arctic, climate and peacekeeping. The Carney Government has neither the luxury of focusing on those issues now nor a meaningful NDP presence in Parliament to push the Liberals back to the left.
I kind of agree with what you say, however, if you recall, MC promised to get his work underway on a "war-time footing" but I have just seen business as usual from him.
Yes, he has these problems but he sold himself, first to the LPC members, and then to the electorate, as "the guy" who had the connections, the talent, the know-how to get things done. But, as I say, just business as usual. That would be business as usual over the last ten years.
The war-time footing shifts from day to day, sometimes within hours with DT. You think you have the objective of the adversary figured out, and a strategy to negotiate, but you don’t know what the next deranged idea he will launch. The news out of the US is more disturbing every day.
And - this is absolutely critical - how is this new? In what way was this not known at the time that these statements were being made?
Further, war time footing was to encompass transactions / deals / relations with other countries. It was to do things in Canada - hmmmm .... how are we doing on reducing interprovincial barriers to trade? What have we done to get the much vaunted "major projects" under way? Oh, we have a major projects office in my home town of Calgary. But, the MPO subsumed the "Clean Growth Office" established in 2024 [so the MPO is not new? Dunno.] in the PCO in Ottawer. So, renamed and moved.
Remember, MC was supposed to be "the Trump Whisperer" - a foolish title to anyone who had ever read a newspaper article about DJT, but there it is/was according to the sycophantic usual suspects in the LPC and in the government subsidized media.
Yes, you correctly say that the news out of the US is increasingly concerning. But, again, how is that something new? We all knew that DJT was/is someone with several screws loose, even during the election campaign.
So, all I am doing in my criticism of MC is to ask that he either live up to his promises and the promises of his claque or to admit that he can't do the job that he took on.
and you think PP could take on that job? maybe the job is extremely difficult with so many factors out of a Canadian PM's control? in which case, imho, MC is as good as it gets to hopefully save us.
Danielle, I simply posit that MC has proven that he has been unable to meet his promises and that his reputation is puffery so, therefore, we have nothing to lose by looking PP.
I expect that you will be unconvinced but you did ask what I thought.
I've sampled many of the comments below. Mark Sternman most articulately says what I can't possibly express with as much clarity and focus. Axworthy is trustworthy and respectable but just feels out of touch with the multitude of factors neither Chretien nor he ever had to manage on a "foundation" shifting on a pretty much daily basis. One point Axworthy made, however, I believe needs urgent action. Carney mentioned it while campaigning but has not mentioned this focus much since; the young men in our country/world facing debt and unemployment and nihilistic temptations on the internet will NOT vote for Carney unless he figures out how to provide for their needs, and fast! And it's not just Carney-aversion. It's the ironically false pseudopromises of Poilievre (in that PP claims Carney is promising them "nothing" cuz he's doing "nothing ... but PP is doing what exactly?) who will never deliver what they need if HE's elected and who is causing our country to row against, instead of with, a current of unity forward, creating circular momentum coming from his disinformation to which recent research confirms younger people are apparently more susceptible. We need to attend to these young men urgently, because, well, they can vote!
agree completely - excellent point on the need to engage young men. I recall Carney saying that during the election and am hopeful it has not been lost. I note that Janice Stein has been speaking out about this recently, as well.
As a very broad generalization, I'm not impressed with Lloyd Axworthy, never have been.
Now, having said that, I do listen to (read, today) what he says. I frequently don't agree with him but he always has some points that resonate with me. So, to summarize, I enjoyed this interview even if I only agreed with Lloyd on some of it.
I came up in news organizations that often had a political centre of gravity but whose highest value was “This is interesting.” I try to do some of that here, too.
Mr Axworthy makes many interesting points. Enjoyed reading this interview.
One thing jumped out for me. The US isn’t becoming an authoritarian dictatorship. The US is already an authoritarian dictatorship. I kinda just realized this. The checks and balances of their democracy are no longer functioning. Their Supreme Court is no longer legitimate or following any logic or precedent. Congress and Senate dysfunctional. Justice departments fully weaponized. FBI doing Trumps bidding. FCC bullying media. ICE running around totally ignoring constitutional rights.
So they already are but are just in the process of consolidating the levers of control now. Once they control the TikTok algorithms they should be locked in.
Is this what it was like in Austria in the 30’s? Things going crazy next door but in the meantime you go to work, eat, life goes on. Bills need to be paid. Sorta feels surreal.
One of the best interviews you’ve ever done. Great respect here for Mr. Axworthy. I read his substack with great interest. The LPC if we can even call it as such anymore would be wise to tap into this man’s moral clarity and wisdom on so many fronts. Liberals lost their way after Jean Chrétien and the infighting with Paul Martin. Then came along the upstart Trudeau junior with his sunny ways. At least he was progressive but way too preachy and divisive especially on the vaccines. After that it was only a matter of time before he would be gone from the political scene in this country. I too along with Mr. Axworthy supported and voted for Ms. Freeland for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration. She would have taken our country in a very much different direction standing boldly up to Donald Trump again as she did the first time. She knows his type all too well. I’m greatly disappointed in the direction Carney is steering our country in along with the two Carney whisperers and anti-Freeland co-conspirators Anand and Champagne. From the latter I wouldn’t buy a used car from. As for the former she should have returned to academia at the U of T. Each time she uses the word “insure” I cringe. She has overused that word so much it’s become meaningless. And bringing back Sean Fraser the architect of our immigration disaster as Attorney General and Justice Minister from what apparently is no longer his needy family in N.S. shows just how out of touch Carney really was with Canadian politics before he decided he needed a new gig or side hustle after his attempt to reform global banking to mitigate risks from climate change went sideways as did apparently his tenure as UN envoy on climate change.
I have tremendous respect for Mr Axworthy who has a long and distinguished career as a professional politician. However his writings of late ooze of nostalgic longings for government policy that mirrors the good ol' days when he had clout and a Boss who gave him rope to do things.
The world has moved on, alliances have shifted and the Canada Axworthy pines for has been severely weakened by a ten year Justin Trudeau led tenure of his beloved Liberal Party in government.
Axworthy was part of the Chretien team that was forced to deal with a serious debt crisis. With storm clouds looming over the current financial situation in Ottawa, does he seriously believe that Ms. Freeland had the credentials to fix the many problems that she had a hand in creating?
One last thing: Axworthy spent a decent amount of time as Foreign Affairs Minister. He made no mention of Oct. 7 pogrom in Israel, the subsequent war in Gaza or the significant and worrisome rise in antisemitism in Canada. Our Carney government is isolating Israel by supporting a Palestinian State first and worrying about the details later. Is this good diplomacy for Canada? What is his advice to Canadian Jews who are paying the price for a war many time zones away?
Like so many of his leftist compatriots, he continues to pursue the notion the this country must exist as the poster boy for a perfect humanity.
It is an impossible dream and a human foible in itself.
He has the age-old conceit to believe that social utopia can be achieved if only his wisdom is applied -by forcing the rehabilitation of an imperfect world.
I think many of the commenters here need to compare this Q&A with Mr Axworthy to the one conducted on the "Hub" September 29th with US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra and Premier Danielle Smith (without doubt the most competent political leader in our country today). One is realistic and the other is a dubious trip down memory lane.
A comfortable visit to the past...... when Canada had the capability to do things internationally (well, sort of.... we haven't had that since the early 1970s). Or the capability to do things at home too.....
The Current PM has been in office not even six months and already everyone is expecting results, on the trade war, the building of Pipelines and energy agreements, immigration, housing,drugs mental health and homelessness, crime, food sustainability, inclement weather affecting farmers across Canada. The states of our military.
The PM inherited quite a mess from his predecessor. Now with all these projects having been promised, the future deficit will skyrocket. Then the most likely scenario will be the Conservatives will be gnashing their teeth, crying to the heavens, oh woe is me. The end is nigh...
Speak to me in January 2027 and we will revisit the government promises and where they stand.
" ,,,, already everyone is expecting results .... "
But, but, but ....
Mark, MC and his acolytes in the LPC sold the public (a bill of goods, really) the idea that "he was the man," that only he could deal with DJT, that he "had a plan," that he would hit the ground running and put the government "on a war time footing."
Personally, I think it is absolutely, positively reasonable to expect SOMETHING of substance. In truth, about all that we have (a) is a law about fast tracking projects that (inevitably, really) got some folks upset and (b) a list of a few potential projects that, quite frankly, I don't really expect to come to fruition for about 4 - 5 years. If at all.
So, to summarize, I respectfully disagree with you in your analysis of MC to date.
Question,Which of the four parties were not trying to sell a bill of goods to the Canadian people, and in Mr Blanchet's case, Quebec. You have a timeline, your assessment is between four to five years. I disagree, I believe we are looking at a decade, minimum. If not more.
Mark, you mention four parties. I presume that includes the Greens. (Laugh, sneer) In this response I will ignore the Greens because they were/are so ignorable. [Ignorable is not to be confused with calling them ignorant; who knows, they may be that as well but I am not making that claim about the Greens.]
I went back and looked at the formal platforms and, to be honest, the platforms for the LPC, CPC and NDP are high minded and don't seem particularly extreme. Not particularly realistic, even at the time, and very unrealistic in light of what the government did after the election, right up to now.
What I would say, however, is that things like speeches, comments from "the usual suspects" from each party about the merits of their guy / demerits of the other guys are very much to be considered.
The LPC usual suspects sold MC pretty much as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ who would put Canada on a war-time footing, could be the best at negotiating with DJT, would raise $20 billion with counter tariffs against the US and would keep all our elbows up around the sky; further, they asserted that anyone who did not so believe was just a bad, bad person. Oh, and PP? He was a bad person personified and had no skill in dealing with DJT as he was a disciple, a clone, really, of DJT. The LPC usual suspects pretty much ignored Singh.
The CPC usual suspects criticized MC (they also pretty much ignored Singh) as unrealistic and said that their guy (PP) could very credibly deal with DJT and could reach an agreement.
The NDP usual suspects (really, there were some) were trying to criticize MC as being too conservative and PP as, well, being too, too conservative. They wanted to put a price cap on food and would give money from counter-tariffs to workers and communities.
If you look at the actual published platforms (I did) the platforms were the usual pie a la mode in the sky but only in keeping with "standard" election practice. It was, as I said, the LPC usual suspects who so oversold Carney and, of course, the established news media (all funded by the Liberal government, of course) which bought into the narrative that MC was the only guy, that he would put Canada on war-time footing, etc.
Now, as for timeline. The Face Painter spent a decade destroying Canada - and we all know that destruction is much easier than construction - so I think that a decade is a minimum time period. The real question in my mind is whether Canada can survive a decade, particularly as we currently have a Face Painter advisor as PM.
And, perhaps, just perhaps there is soooooommme truth to that. After all, he did announce that he wanted stuff and he made some suggestions as to a few of some kinds of stuff. But he hasn't done anything else. His predecessor, the Face Painter, played down pretty much everything, well, except for announcing things that didn't get done - oh, is the current group the same as the last group? So, perhaps MC isn't moving that fast. Oh, but he does claim to be the best in just about forever - same as the last group.
Delusions are what the Face Painter's government was selling (unsuccessfully in terms of the population at large but very successfully in terms of his claque); MC continues to sell delusions.
He has certainly set the civil service lot of tasks and has set (for the civil service, that is) ambitious deadlines but trying to get the civil service to successfully (note this adverb!)) move quickly is unlikely to render what MC says he wants and certainly not we, the public, want.
As for his "crowning achievement", Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine are laying landmines.
R2P was also just a progressive rework the neoconservative foreign interventionism to justify interventions by powerful Western countries under a humanitarian guise, reflecting the neo-imperialist concensus in the unipolar moment.
I too remain sceptical when it comes to the Liberals 'Nation Building Projects' with its focus on private sector investment and projects. The answers to the most intense needs of Canadians are things like healthcare, housing and affordability. We need are all levels of government to step up with capital, regulations, incentives to build our public institutions. This will bring benefits to the private sector as well for it will do much of the actual building. We need reforms expressed through our fiscal policies of spending and taxation. Carney's first budget will be the acid test and the first indication of whether it is 'business as usual' or whether public services will also be enhanced. I hope a general principle will be: to each according to ability/need, from each according to income/wealth/benefits received. Place your bets. Mine, unfortunately, would be "business as usual'. Even though the 'business' might be done much more efficiently, the benefits will not be shared widely enough with the community of Canadians through changes in the public sector.
I think there's little for a reasonable person to disagree with here. Axworthy's message is "do more of this stuff". He's stressing the importance of what in business we call P1 issues, that are currently being overlooked, while Carney, who doesn't have Axworthy's seasoning in government or the benefit of an old war dog's 20/20 hindsight, has his hands full with the P0 issues that the electorate is focused on, and that "events" demand he responds to with alacrity.
It occurs to me that impatience is what twenty-something and eighty-something year-olds have in common, although for quite different reasons.
Mr. Axworthy is unlikely to be satisfied by this (or any other) government, but he's saying what needs to be, in an environment where there currently is little worthwhile policy critique.
After reading the interview, to me Mr Axworthy really seems like yesterday's man. I get the impression that he comes from the school that big government and top down management is going to solve all of our problems. I thus we know by now that the feds have a pretty poor track record in picking winners and losers in the business sector. How many billions have been wasted on corporate welfare? With respect to the military, we belong to NATO. The US is the main contributor o military hardware. From a financial and logistics standpoint, does it make sense that we would not use standardized equipment and weapons? I don't like the underlying antagonism towards Alberta either. I understand that Mr Axworthy represents the Canada of Pierre Trudeau and the Laurentian Elites. I'm not nostalgic for those times. The current PM understands that like it or not, our current economic viability and standard of living depends on maintaining a strong trade relationship with the US. We are not going to replace that with England or Australia. Mr Carney has to try and make the best of a bad situation until President Trump is gone (hopefully after the next election). I understand that for many older Canadians, they would like to go back to the way things were before Brian Mulroney arrived. However, that isn't going to happen.
I felt the whole soft power thing was pie in the sky 30 years ago and it appears his ideas are still half baked.
A great read (just like Axworthy's memoir) although the former foreign minister seems too unsympathetic to the challenges confronting the current PM. To stay in office when facing an existential economic threat from its noxious neighbour, prioritizing building tighter relations with trading partners old (UK) and new (Indonesia) makes sense. Once/if the economy stabilizes, then pivot to other important issues, albeit ones that matter less to Canadian voters, like the Arctic, climate and peacekeeping. The Carney Government has neither the luxury of focusing on those issues now nor a meaningful NDP presence in Parliament to push the Liberals back to the left.
I kind of agree with what you say, however, if you recall, MC promised to get his work underway on a "war-time footing" but I have just seen business as usual from him.
Yes, he has these problems but he sold himself, first to the LPC members, and then to the electorate, as "the guy" who had the connections, the talent, the know-how to get things done. But, as I say, just business as usual. That would be business as usual over the last ten years.
The war-time footing shifts from day to day, sometimes within hours with DT. You think you have the objective of the adversary figured out, and a strategy to negotiate, but you don’t know what the next deranged idea he will launch. The news out of the US is more disturbing every day.
Valerie, you are correct.
And - this is absolutely critical - how is this new? In what way was this not known at the time that these statements were being made?
Further, war time footing was to encompass transactions / deals / relations with other countries. It was to do things in Canada - hmmmm .... how are we doing on reducing interprovincial barriers to trade? What have we done to get the much vaunted "major projects" under way? Oh, we have a major projects office in my home town of Calgary. But, the MPO subsumed the "Clean Growth Office" established in 2024 [so the MPO is not new? Dunno.] in the PCO in Ottawer. So, renamed and moved.
Remember, MC was supposed to be "the Trump Whisperer" - a foolish title to anyone who had ever read a newspaper article about DJT, but there it is/was according to the sycophantic usual suspects in the LPC and in the government subsidized media.
Yes, you correctly say that the news out of the US is increasingly concerning. But, again, how is that something new? We all knew that DJT was/is someone with several screws loose, even during the election campaign.
So, all I am doing in my criticism of MC is to ask that he either live up to his promises and the promises of his claque or to admit that he can't do the job that he took on.
and you think PP could take on that job? maybe the job is extremely difficult with so many factors out of a Canadian PM's control? in which case, imho, MC is as good as it gets to hopefully save us.
Danielle, I simply posit that MC has proven that he has been unable to meet his promises and that his reputation is puffery so, therefore, we have nothing to lose by looking PP.
I expect that you will be unconvinced but you did ask what I thought.
I've sampled many of the comments below. Mark Sternman most articulately says what I can't possibly express with as much clarity and focus. Axworthy is trustworthy and respectable but just feels out of touch with the multitude of factors neither Chretien nor he ever had to manage on a "foundation" shifting on a pretty much daily basis. One point Axworthy made, however, I believe needs urgent action. Carney mentioned it while campaigning but has not mentioned this focus much since; the young men in our country/world facing debt and unemployment and nihilistic temptations on the internet will NOT vote for Carney unless he figures out how to provide for their needs, and fast! And it's not just Carney-aversion. It's the ironically false pseudopromises of Poilievre (in that PP claims Carney is promising them "nothing" cuz he's doing "nothing ... but PP is doing what exactly?) who will never deliver what they need if HE's elected and who is causing our country to row against, instead of with, a current of unity forward, creating circular momentum coming from his disinformation to which recent research confirms younger people are apparently more susceptible. We need to attend to these young men urgently, because, well, they can vote!
excellent point about the need to figure out how to bring young men into the fold
agree completely - excellent point on the need to engage young men. I recall Carney saying that during the election and am hopeful it has not been lost. I note that Janice Stein has been speaking out about this recently, as well.
Re Youth: Seth Klein's Youth Climate Corps is ready to go! Hope I'm not dreaming that it might be in the coming Budget.
Great Response
As a very broad generalization, I'm not impressed with Lloyd Axworthy, never have been.
Now, having said that, I do listen to (read, today) what he says. I frequently don't agree with him but he always has some points that resonate with me. So, to summarize, I enjoyed this interview even if I only agreed with Lloyd on some of it.
Thank you, as always, Mr. W.
I came up in news organizations that often had a political centre of gravity but whose highest value was “This is interesting.” I try to do some of that here, too.
And you, Sir, always deliver on interesting. Always.
Mr Axworthy makes many interesting points. Enjoyed reading this interview.
One thing jumped out for me. The US isn’t becoming an authoritarian dictatorship. The US is already an authoritarian dictatorship. I kinda just realized this. The checks and balances of their democracy are no longer functioning. Their Supreme Court is no longer legitimate or following any logic or precedent. Congress and Senate dysfunctional. Justice departments fully weaponized. FBI doing Trumps bidding. FCC bullying media. ICE running around totally ignoring constitutional rights.
So they already are but are just in the process of consolidating the levers of control now. Once they control the TikTok algorithms they should be locked in.
Is this what it was like in Austria in the 30’s? Things going crazy next door but in the meantime you go to work, eat, life goes on. Bills need to be paid. Sorta feels surreal.
One of the best interviews you’ve ever done. Great respect here for Mr. Axworthy. I read his substack with great interest. The LPC if we can even call it as such anymore would be wise to tap into this man’s moral clarity and wisdom on so many fronts. Liberals lost their way after Jean Chrétien and the infighting with Paul Martin. Then came along the upstart Trudeau junior with his sunny ways. At least he was progressive but way too preachy and divisive especially on the vaccines. After that it was only a matter of time before he would be gone from the political scene in this country. I too along with Mr. Axworthy supported and voted for Ms. Freeland for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration. She would have taken our country in a very much different direction standing boldly up to Donald Trump again as she did the first time. She knows his type all too well. I’m greatly disappointed in the direction Carney is steering our country in along with the two Carney whisperers and anti-Freeland co-conspirators Anand and Champagne. From the latter I wouldn’t buy a used car from. As for the former she should have returned to academia at the U of T. Each time she uses the word “insure” I cringe. She has overused that word so much it’s become meaningless. And bringing back Sean Fraser the architect of our immigration disaster as Attorney General and Justice Minister from what apparently is no longer his needy family in N.S. shows just how out of touch Carney really was with Canadian politics before he decided he needed a new gig or side hustle after his attempt to reform global banking to mitigate risks from climate change went sideways as did apparently his tenure as UN envoy on climate change.
I have tremendous respect for Mr Axworthy who has a long and distinguished career as a professional politician. However his writings of late ooze of nostalgic longings for government policy that mirrors the good ol' days when he had clout and a Boss who gave him rope to do things.
The world has moved on, alliances have shifted and the Canada Axworthy pines for has been severely weakened by a ten year Justin Trudeau led tenure of his beloved Liberal Party in government.
Axworthy was part of the Chretien team that was forced to deal with a serious debt crisis. With storm clouds looming over the current financial situation in Ottawa, does he seriously believe that Ms. Freeland had the credentials to fix the many problems that she had a hand in creating?
One last thing: Axworthy spent a decent amount of time as Foreign Affairs Minister. He made no mention of Oct. 7 pogrom in Israel, the subsequent war in Gaza or the significant and worrisome rise in antisemitism in Canada. Our Carney government is isolating Israel by supporting a Palestinian State first and worrying about the details later. Is this good diplomacy for Canada? What is his advice to Canadian Jews who are paying the price for a war many time zones away?
Axeworthy’s vision of Canada has not changed.
Like so many of his leftist compatriots, he continues to pursue the notion the this country must exist as the poster boy for a perfect humanity.
It is an impossible dream and a human foible in itself.
He has the age-old conceit to believe that social utopia can be achieved if only his wisdom is applied -by forcing the rehabilitation of an imperfect world.
I think many of the commenters here need to compare this Q&A with Mr Axworthy to the one conducted on the "Hub" September 29th with US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra and Premier Danielle Smith (without doubt the most competent political leader in our country today). One is realistic and the other is a dubious trip down memory lane.
A comfortable visit to the past...... when Canada had the capability to do things internationally (well, sort of.... we haven't had that since the early 1970s). Or the capability to do things at home too.....
The Current PM has been in office not even six months and already everyone is expecting results, on the trade war, the building of Pipelines and energy agreements, immigration, housing,drugs mental health and homelessness, crime, food sustainability, inclement weather affecting farmers across Canada. The states of our military.
The PM inherited quite a mess from his predecessor. Now with all these projects having been promised, the future deficit will skyrocket. Then the most likely scenario will be the Conservatives will be gnashing their teeth, crying to the heavens, oh woe is me. The end is nigh...
Speak to me in January 2027 and we will revisit the government promises and where they stand.
The only reason Canadians are/were expecting that, is that it is what he explicitly and repeatedly promised to do.
If he had not, he would not today be PM.
" ,,,, already everyone is expecting results .... "
But, but, but ....
Mark, MC and his acolytes in the LPC sold the public (a bill of goods, really) the idea that "he was the man," that only he could deal with DJT, that he "had a plan," that he would hit the ground running and put the government "on a war time footing."
Personally, I think it is absolutely, positively reasonable to expect SOMETHING of substance. In truth, about all that we have (a) is a law about fast tracking projects that (inevitably, really) got some folks upset and (b) a list of a few potential projects that, quite frankly, I don't really expect to come to fruition for about 4 - 5 years. If at all.
So, to summarize, I respectfully disagree with you in your analysis of MC to date.
Ken
Great response.
Question,Which of the four parties were not trying to sell a bill of goods to the Canadian people, and in Mr Blanchet's case, Quebec. You have a timeline, your assessment is between four to five years. I disagree, I believe we are looking at a decade, minimum. If not more.
Mark, you mention four parties. I presume that includes the Greens. (Laugh, sneer) In this response I will ignore the Greens because they were/are so ignorable. [Ignorable is not to be confused with calling them ignorant; who knows, they may be that as well but I am not making that claim about the Greens.]
I went back and looked at the formal platforms and, to be honest, the platforms for the LPC, CPC and NDP are high minded and don't seem particularly extreme. Not particularly realistic, even at the time, and very unrealistic in light of what the government did after the election, right up to now.
What I would say, however, is that things like speeches, comments from "the usual suspects" from each party about the merits of their guy / demerits of the other guys are very much to be considered.
The LPC usual suspects sold MC pretty much as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ who would put Canada on a war-time footing, could be the best at negotiating with DJT, would raise $20 billion with counter tariffs against the US and would keep all our elbows up around the sky; further, they asserted that anyone who did not so believe was just a bad, bad person. Oh, and PP? He was a bad person personified and had no skill in dealing with DJT as he was a disciple, a clone, really, of DJT. The LPC usual suspects pretty much ignored Singh.
The CPC usual suspects criticized MC (they also pretty much ignored Singh) as unrealistic and said that their guy (PP) could very credibly deal with DJT and could reach an agreement.
The NDP usual suspects (really, there were some) were trying to criticize MC as being too conservative and PP as, well, being too, too conservative. They wanted to put a price cap on food and would give money from counter-tariffs to workers and communities.
If you look at the actual published platforms (I did) the platforms were the usual pie a la mode in the sky but only in keeping with "standard" election practice. It was, as I said, the LPC usual suspects who so oversold Carney and, of course, the established news media (all funded by the Liberal government, of course) which bought into the narrative that MC was the only guy, that he would put Canada on war-time footing, etc.
Now, as for timeline. The Face Painter spent a decade destroying Canada - and we all know that destruction is much easier than construction - so I think that a decade is a minimum time period. The real question in my mind is whether Canada can survive a decade, particularly as we currently have a Face Painter advisor as PM.
We shall see.....
https://x.com/MarkJCarney/status/1961452257091699103
Mark Carney "We are moving at a speed not seen in generations."
Actually, Gerald, yes, MC did say that.
And, perhaps, just perhaps there is soooooommme truth to that. After all, he did announce that he wanted stuff and he made some suggestions as to a few of some kinds of stuff. But he hasn't done anything else. His predecessor, the Face Painter, played down pretty much everything, well, except for announcing things that didn't get done - oh, is the current group the same as the last group? So, perhaps MC isn't moving that fast. Oh, but he does claim to be the best in just about forever - same as the last group.
"We are moving at a slower speed not seen in generations."
Delusions are what the Face Painter's government was selling (unsuccessfully in terms of the population at large but very successfully in terms of his claque); MC continues to sell delusions.
He has certainly set the civil service lot of tasks and has set (for the civil service, that is) ambitious deadlines but trying to get the civil service to successfully (note this adverb!)) move quickly is unlikely to render what MC says he wants and certainly not we, the public, want.
"Pie-in-the-sky" Axworthy as usual.
As for his "crowning achievement", Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine are laying landmines.
R2P was also just a progressive rework the neoconservative foreign interventionism to justify interventions by powerful Western countries under a humanitarian guise, reflecting the neo-imperialist concensus in the unipolar moment.
"Most Carney supporters I know have laughed off these (Axworthy) critiques" That's sad.
Axworthy is a very red Liberal. These are not the times for such a politician. We need a cold blooded realist who’s good with numbers.
If only there was such a realist in Ottawer. There certainly isn't one in the government.
I too remain sceptical when it comes to the Liberals 'Nation Building Projects' with its focus on private sector investment and projects. The answers to the most intense needs of Canadians are things like healthcare, housing and affordability. We need are all levels of government to step up with capital, regulations, incentives to build our public institutions. This will bring benefits to the private sector as well for it will do much of the actual building. We need reforms expressed through our fiscal policies of spending and taxation. Carney's first budget will be the acid test and the first indication of whether it is 'business as usual' or whether public services will also be enhanced. I hope a general principle will be: to each according to ability/need, from each according to income/wealth/benefits received. Place your bets. Mine, unfortunately, would be "business as usual'. Even though the 'business' might be done much more efficiently, the benefits will not be shared widely enough with the community of Canadians through changes in the public sector.
I think there's little for a reasonable person to disagree with here. Axworthy's message is "do more of this stuff". He's stressing the importance of what in business we call P1 issues, that are currently being overlooked, while Carney, who doesn't have Axworthy's seasoning in government or the benefit of an old war dog's 20/20 hindsight, has his hands full with the P0 issues that the electorate is focused on, and that "events" demand he responds to with alacrity.
It occurs to me that impatience is what twenty-something and eighty-something year-olds have in common, although for quite different reasons.
Mr. Axworthy is unlikely to be satisfied by this (or any other) government, but he's saying what needs to be, in an environment where there currently is little worthwhile policy critique.
Excellent to hear from Mr Axworthy - thank you Paul
After reading the interview, to me Mr Axworthy really seems like yesterday's man. I get the impression that he comes from the school that big government and top down management is going to solve all of our problems. I thus we know by now that the feds have a pretty poor track record in picking winners and losers in the business sector. How many billions have been wasted on corporate welfare? With respect to the military, we belong to NATO. The US is the main contributor o military hardware. From a financial and logistics standpoint, does it make sense that we would not use standardized equipment and weapons? I don't like the underlying antagonism towards Alberta either. I understand that Mr Axworthy represents the Canada of Pierre Trudeau and the Laurentian Elites. I'm not nostalgic for those times. The current PM understands that like it or not, our current economic viability and standard of living depends on maintaining a strong trade relationship with the US. We are not going to replace that with England or Australia. Mr Carney has to try and make the best of a bad situation until President Trump is gone (hopefully after the next election). I understand that for many older Canadians, they would like to go back to the way things were before Brian Mulroney arrived. However, that isn't going to happen.