“In French, a language that fits this Savile Row man like a hand-carved barrel — it covers the essentials while leaving the odd splinter “ writing like that is why I subscribed
I can’t help but wonder which direction all of this proposed expansion of trade is actually pointing towards.
The Liberal talking points are gently guiding us eastward towards Britain and the EU. I’m skeptical. Enhanced economic ties with China is baked into the Liberal Party DNA, and the Prime Minister (yes, I guess he is) is joining a long list of Liberal insiders who have connections with China to make bigger deals possible.
Buyer beware. China is using diplomatic language to push for better trade relations and has tossed the western Canadian canola, pea and hog producers into the blender as bait to reduce the 100% EV tariffs imposed by Canada.
China plays the long game. Donald Trump strategizes on an hourly basis, but is two years away from mid term elections. Canada needs to play our own long game and trade expansion with China is not in our best interests.
I'm quite sure that there is no foreign market as congenial as the US has been, and that the result of turning away from free trade will be a serious hit to Canadian prosperity, at least when measured against what could have been. But there's no use pining for a foreclosed option. As for China, you're right: temptation and danger.
I liked that phrase, it’s quite fitting in our current situation.
Going back to high tariffs on Chinese EVs, it’s reasonable to wonder what a new Liberal government might think about allowing some sort of Chinese integration into the Ontario auto assembly lines. Now there is temptation and danger.
I know that it irritates proprietors of Substack bylines to have cross chatter in the comment section veering off course, so I will keep it brief:
China has been an aggressive international power and Canada hasn’t been spared. Interfering with our political system at all three levels, monitoring the activities of those with Chinese ethnicity and allegedly running “police stations” in Canada does not align with values we seek in a reputable trading partner.
As stated above, China is playing chess moves years and decades out while our political class strategizes in election cycles. We need to open our eyes and see what is going on.
Are you irritated by our cross-chatter, PW? I l’m guessing no as long as we keep it constructive.
Back to the issue at hand. I share all of those concerns. I just don’t think every Chinese company is necessarily an arm of the CCP and that carefully designed JVs could be fruitful. I’m not expert on any of this though.
I've actually been surprised at how rarely I have to intervene in any comment thread here. I gave one subscriber a one-day imposed cooling-off period, and that was for a very blunt personal insult aimed at somebody else. Must have been the first time I'd done anything like that in a year. Short of that, I have no complaints and I usually find the comment threads here are one of the best things about hosting this newsletter. Knock on wood.
Why is trade expansion with China not in our best interest? It's a question that perplexes me, especially given Carney's recent statement on rejecting boosting trade with them. I think Carney's stance is to deny that perhaps we're looking at the dawn of the Chinese Century and just don't know it yet. Also, as someone who lived in China from 2017 to 2018, we can learn a great deal from their approach to infrastructure building. They are decades ahead of Canada in terms of technology, transportation, educational expansion, etc. Please note, my comment isn't meant to downplay or deny egregious human rights violations or Xi's own autocratic pursuits. I'm more of the mind-frame that it would be foolish for the Canadian government to ignore China, its growing middle class, and international influence.
No one's calling for China to be ignored. What many are saying is that we shouldn't be taking all our eggs out of the USA basket and placing them in the one marked CCP.
As far as the Chinese Century, that's looking less and less likely. They've been lying about their demographics for years, and their population and especially labor market are about to enter a steep decline.
I think people underestimate the impact of the Chinese demographics on Vancouver and Toronto's real estate, among other things. They simply don't have the numbers and economic liquidity to show up with wheelbarrows of money anymore. All the evaluations in those markets are based on a 30-year trend started after Expo, and its well and truly over now. When the 5-year mortgages from the pandemic roll over and there's significantly less foreign funny-money in the system, there will be a lot of issues. We're going to be dealing with this right in the middle of a trade war with the US.
There needs to be a pan-Canadian 'grand bargain' to mend the east-west rift, or we won't be going into this dark night unified.
How many times do they have to flagrantly demonstrate that they are contemptuous of human dignity in general but also specifically of our sovereignty before we decide we don’t want to get closer to them? Red China is an enemy to all free people. The Chinese Century will not be a nice time. We can only hope they mess it up as have several times in their long history.
Expanding trade with China - you're kidding, right?
Where were you in the years prior to 2017-18 and then after? Were you shut out of the news while there about their increasingly belligerent foreign policy tone in different parts of the world? And how about the still unresolved interference of Chinese communists sent here in our electoral processes? Does Nortel and the widespread theft of intellectual properties of other corporations around the world by the Chinese not mean anything? Did you not hear about investors entering into business agreements, later finding out they weren't worth the paper they were printed on?
What of the two Michaels and their illegal arrests in response to a treaty we had with the United States concerning the arrest and detention of Hauwei's Meng Wanzhou?
As long as communists are ruling the roost in that otherwise great nation, every map in the free world should carry the warning used by cartographer centuries ago:
Well, yes....this election is about who Cdns. want to hear on the 6 o'clock news representing Cdn. on the international stage and doing battle with Trump. The guy in the Saville Row suit or the guy delivering coffee and donuts to the Freedom Convoy. Many Cdns. already know the answer to that question.
Indeed, we do! We’re choosing the guy you so narrowly try to pigeon-hole into the TimBits box because he’s the homegrown guy with the real connection and love for Canada. Pierre Poilievre is the one who had the idea and ambition to seed the lawn, weed it, water it, nurture it, add landscaping, and watch it grow long before the interloper, Carney, with the help of the WEF, the UN climate crew, Butts & Telford (a destructive force if there ever was one), the Laurentian elite, the Chinese compradors, and the lucratively Liberal subsidized media came riding in on his British Hayter, wearing his white Saville Row coveralls and hard hat, waving his CV shouting, “Step aside, peasants, I’m the great Mark Carney. I start at the top and, oh, I played hockey.” No one needs to agree with me. Mock me if you wish. We each get ONE vote.
I don't want to mock you, and I'm actually heartened by the fact that different people see things differently and that, as you say, we can all have our equal say at the ballot box. There's an increasing tendency, these past few years, to assume that anyone who disagrees must be acting in bad faith. I actually think it's great that you see the world how you do, I see the world how I do, we both want what's best for Canada, and we both get a vote. That's how it should be. Thanks for advocating for your side, Penny. We'll see how it comes out.
I don't think enough emphasis is given to the folks who will/could make up Poilievres cabinet. Lots of merit there as opposed to what passed for DEI appointments in the Trudeau/Carney show.
So far, Carney has not wowed us with his negotiation skills - in fact he has displayed NONE, because he wanted to get a mandate first before even trying to tackle Trump.
He literally wrote a book specifically about what his plans are for the Canadian economy, but the release has been delayed - so we won't find out what those plans are until AFTER he has been elected.
He KNOWS he has conflicts of interest, but he doesn't want to tell us what they are until AFTER we've voted him in for at least four years at the helm.
My question to you sir, is why do you think all of the above is desirable?
My comment about the leadership choices available to Cdns. on April 28th is in very general terms. For good or ill, we know a lot about Mr. Poilievre's values and leadership style. Mr. Carney is a blue Liberal who has a broad and deep CV. Both represent a good choice, if they fit your values or if you think that one or the other has the skills, experience and character to meet this moment in our country.
I don't know why the release of Carney's second book has been delayed and don't want to engage in speculation on that because speculation is just that, speculation.
Have you read his first book, Values; Building A Better World For All? I understand that his views are pretty well laid out in it.
My profuse apologies for the unintentional mis-gendering.
Yes, I have read his book "Values" - I wish more Canadians had.
Here are some highlights about what he thinks the average First World person should expect under his version of Utopia:
"A radical decrease in the availability of meat and dairy — preferably a complete turn to a plant and even perhaps insect-based diet."
"Three new articles of clothing a year, maximum".
"reducing and eventually nearly eliminating the need for car ownership."
"abandonment of the wealth of the fossil fuel economy — the coal, oil, and natural gas that all of our industrial economy and much of our agriculture depends upon, absolutely and finally."
Sounds peachy, why is he not running on this....?
His second book supposedly zooms in from the macro view (First World economies) into the micro (Canada's economy), which would be a REALLY handy thing to know before handing him the reins of our economy.
...speculation aside, I think it is blindingly obvious why that book has not been released in advance of this election. He's hoping that by the time anyone gets to read it, he will already be irreversibly in power for a full term.
As I have seen you do elsewhere in another article, you are cherry-picking quotes without contest from Carney's book. These are not policy positions he has advocated for or against, just positions that he ascribes to others.
I haven't read Values so I appreciate your book review.
I can understand reducing meat and dairy in our diets, not the insects so much, reducing the need for car ownership ie increased public transit and the move away from dependency on fossil fuels as a necessity to maintain life on our planet. That has been an object of nations around the world for some time but the clothing comment is intriguing. If it isn't too much trouble could you c & p the section on three articles of clothing a year? Do socks and underwear count as individual pieces of the three? This could get tricky.
The "three new articles of clothing" thing is a WEF rumination about how, if we had more durable clothes that could be repaired, transformed, rented, etc. then someone may only need to buy three new articles a year on average because they'd be able to repurpose clothing that already existed to fit their needs. It wasn't put forward as a quota :)
It didn't come from Carney himself, although I don't think we've ever had someone so closely aligned with the WEF as a federal candidate before. From that perspective, it's odd to see him as a "sovereignty" candidate because he effectively opposed reclamation of sovereignty during Brexit and the WEF is oriented toward business interests rather than borders/sovereignty.
Thanks Matt. I agree that we would benefit from more durable clothing and it is interesting how quotes become assigned and then stick without an being an accurate attribution.
Brexit is an interesting situation. Members of my English family who voted for Brexit regret their choice because it wasn't as advertised. Members of my English family that opposed Brexit are fond of say, "I told you so". The Brits were sold a pig in poke and are now looking for other bridges to the European economy. From an economic perspective, Carney was correct.
Sharon, Carney’s book dropped on my doorstep this morning. I’ll get back to you in a day or so on the three articles of clothing. I, too, wonder how this would/should be done, and does it include shoes?
Foregoing steak for ethically-grown sautéed cockroaches might have some environmental benefits, but you'll have to come up with a more compelling argument to convince me that I'll be happier.
Hi Erwin, We are nowhere near solving the problems required to live "a happier and more prosperous" life, under the criteria listed by commenter "gs" from Carney's book....... and we might never get there. We may have to adapt to any changes in climate coming our way, as per Bjorn Lomborg et al., at least for the foreseeable future.
Based on the technology and so-called solutions that are currently available to "save the planet", I have decided that I don't want to be left cold, hungry, sick and poor in the dark, especially in Canada. I doubt you will find many people in the First World who are keen on that. There are lots of virtue signallers though, who like the idea but have never taken the next step to think about what it might mean in a practical sense.
Apparently, the Third World is not keen on it either as they and their leaders work to pull themselves out of poverty at home using fossil fuels, or show up at the borders of Western countries.
I suppose you (personally) could always do a test run of this utopian lifestyle and let the rest of us know how it works out. No cheating though!
Yes, and I’d add that it’s hardly comforting that in order to get elected he’s adopted the signature Conservative policy even though he was telling us five seconds ago that carbon taxes are the way to save the planet.
In this report (and op-ed), you sought (over much, I respectfully submit) to be properly skeptical, as the best journalists in Canada have historically been wont to do.
Which is your right.
However, my interpretation of Carney’s resort to categorical (even “fundamental-ist”) language was as follows:
1) Like some (many?) other Canadian observers, what Carney has apparently concluded—and sought to identify in “categorical” terms—is, in fact, a fundamentally new situation that few, if any, living adult Canadians have had to deal with;
2) What Trump represents will almost certainly not “go away” with his (eventual) departure from “this mortal coil”; and
3) Canada really does face what has been credibly described as an existential crisis, because of what are likely enduring shifts in American preferences and self-perceptions (shifts that Trump so masterfully exploited to secure the highest office in the United States—not once, but twice!).
That he may be one of the most corrupt, venal, misogynistic (and worthless) men to have ascended to the pinnacle of the US political firmament in the last 150 years is irrelevant.
He and his movement (which has remade the Republican Party and is reshaping the sensibilities and policy preferences of the Democratic Party) are the terrible tribunes of potentially irrevocable change. As such, we probably ought to be categorical and fundamentalist when we respond to what they are doing to Canada.
(If we are to remain a sovereign and distinct polity and society).
Your AI generated song of Carney's word salad is a banger, Paul. Maybe this will be the Canada's version of Kamala's "Brat girl summer" via a Bermuda tax haven.
I try to be an optimist, but Carney's speaking in absolutes yesterday was just not helpful. Has our relationship to the States changed? Certainly, but will it remain broken? I doubt it. Cooler heads will eventually prevail.
To your point that some pundits are suggesting that Carney is running as a conservative, I tend to agree. Yet this begs the question, why opt for a facsimile when you can vote for a party that actually believes in the remedies they are proposing? I was never a fan of Harper, but I knew what I was getting. The same can't be said about the Liberals.
Yet Trudeau moved the Liberals so far left they became the NDP. The Liberals previously were a party of the extreme centre. The times right now require an economic structural reboot and I have a lot more confidence in Carney's ability to achieve this than PP.
Thanks for the piece, Paul - you're writing a ton lately, and all of it's very strong.
I appreciate that you touch on one of my recent preoccupations, which has been a meta-narrative throughout this campaign: that the office of prime minister is a cookie you get if you said that Canada had some problems when you were 19, and then you wake up at 46 and Canada has some problems. Tons of people are saying, "Carney says there are problems and he wants to fix them! Pierre's been saying that for years! How dare he steal Pierre's ideas!", and I'm mostly over here wondering what Justin Trudeau's dad has to do with anything. Elections should be, at least in part, about who can best respond to emergent events,.
I am, quite literally, a card carrying member of the Conservative party. I believe in free markets and free trade. I voted for Mulroney because of free trade. I've worked most of my life in industries that are completely integrated into the NAFTA market. (I'm the CFO of a Tier 2 manufacturing company.) And I'm telling you, it's over.
It's sad and frightening when you lose a major customer. But, after going through the grieving process, the solution is always the same: we need to take stock of what our strengths are, and then go out and find new customers.
As a proponent of free markets I am naturally suspicious of Industrial Policy. But it is absolutely clear that the American strategy is to use its market power to extract investments and profits out of its trading partners. If we don't check this then Canadian productivity will fall even further behind American productivity, and eventually Canada will dissolve.
It will be much easier to fail at this task than to succeed. We cannot know who is best to lead us through this transition. But Poilievre is still talking as if free trade can be saved, while Carney at least recognizes where we are.
Poilievre and the Conservatives have been arguing for the trade diversification policies to enhance Canada's wealth and resiliency for a decade. The Liberals and Carney have been doing the exact opposite, until their deathbed conversion two months ago. Carney is now for everything he was opposed to just a short while ago, but actually deceptively so, since it will not succeed with the climate policy he announced on the first day of the campaign.
The challenge of actually delivering on anything is one that plagues modern Canadian governments. In JTs first term, there was a focus on “deliver-ology” with published mandate letters. And this seemed to work for a while. But then the PMO took over everything, as they do. And they only ever care about spin, polling, and re-election, so getting anything done becomes nigh-unto-impossible. Ministerial accountability diminishes with every PMO thumb on the scale.
How else to explain the failures to resolve First Nations water supplies, or get a million trees planted, two of the more achievable plans of the last decade? And how will the CPC be different?
Perhaps Carney has taken the job because instead of being a career move, he hope to actually achieve some things?
I worry about Carney having to build a cabinet after the election with many ministers who were part of Justin Trudeau's government. Finance Minister Champagne was responsible for giving subsidies to Northvolt and Lion Electric, which were supposed to make EVs and EV batteries. These companies are now bankrupt. The Liberals and Ontario PCs have promised billions in subsidies to build EVs in Canada. Given the current situation in the auto industry, will these factories still be built? It would be nice if someone from the Parliamentary Press Gallery could ask PM Carney about this issue. I would be weary of letting Minister Champagne get involved in the auto industry.
I would like to see Michael Chong as Foreign Affairs Minister. Melissa Lantsman & Michelle Remper will be in his cabinet. From Quebec, I believe that Pierre Paul Hus will be his Quebec lieutenant. Gerald Deltell will also be in the cabinet. One mistake Poilievere has made is not to showcase more members of his caucus that could be part of his Cabinet.
The Quebec government admitted to losing at least $270M on Northvolt. They also bought the land where the factory was supposed to be built. They will get that back, but what will they do with it?
I thought the Prime Minister further accentuated his view that the country is facing more than an economic tsunami, but a looming threat to the security of our country. I'm not sure his references to reverse integration and other lofty concepts are going to be understood by much of the country. On the other hand Pierre's imjunction to Trump to "knock it off" was pathetic. Paul, your insights are good but a cynical attitude is not quite commensurate with the stark times.
Canadians as a people have been bombarded with political cynicism for years with a result of taking on that attitude ourselves. That is unfortunate, to say the least, to the extent that we often confuse trenchant opinion with cynicism. I’d say that Paul’s columns are very largely trenchant. Ok, maybe 5% cynicism born of historical realities. That’s not a bad way to view life.
Last year our exports were something like $435 billion to the United States, 21 billion to China, 20 billion to the U.K., 11 billion to Japan and 6 billion to Mexico. To think that we can pivot away from the U.S. in any meaningful way in months or years is a dream, it will take decades. For now we just have to put up with the belligerent and obnoxious President for a few years and muddle through as best we can. Yes we have to improve internal trade, and nurture trade with many other countries, but we will never have a partner as important as the United States.
It does sound good when Mark Carney states that he wants to increase trade with the UK. However, the trade talks with the UK stalled because Canada would not accept any more British Cheese. The USA is our major trading partner whether we like it or not.
India seems like an obvious country that we should be doing more business with. Huge population, growing middle class wanting the prosperity we take for granted, and a large Diaspora in Canada. They could sure use our gas and oil, our minerals, our agricultural products to name just a few. Overcoming the diplomatic tension caused by Trudeau should be fairly easy, but overcoming the lack of port facilities and pipelines is a much bigger problem that will take years to overcome. And if the Liberals do win the election will they walk the current talk, or will they revert to the Liberals of the past ten years and bow at the altar of climate change. I don't trust them and think a majority Conservative government is what this country needs.
The negotiations between the next Canadian PM & the USA will affect the Dairy Cartel. Trump wants to open access to the Canadian market to help Wisconsin dairy farmers.
Last time I checked Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, possibly other countries, all could use western oil and gas. The facilities are already there. The question that we might be asking ourselves is not if but when are we going to strike out on our own. In a different direction.
We have arrived at a time when geo-politics can turn in an instant. If the President were to have a heart attack and die (if God willed it so) all bets are off. Actually, betting on anything is a fool’s game. Eventually, when the world recovers from this head-spinning bout of insanity, Canada will still have to retain a strategic relationship with the United States. Burning all bridges in a fit of pique does not serve our long-term interests. I think of that most-Canadian expression of prevarication: “Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.”
Not sure. Be careful what you wish for if you follow the Carney approach. Don’t give up on the US as a partner in 2 years. I don’t like going it alone with a fractured Europe and having burned our bridges with the US. We can do it and remain a sovereign Country
“In French, a language that fits this Savile Row man like a hand-carved barrel — it covers the essentials while leaving the odd splinter “ writing like that is why I subscribed
Agreed
I can’t help but wonder which direction all of this proposed expansion of trade is actually pointing towards.
The Liberal talking points are gently guiding us eastward towards Britain and the EU. I’m skeptical. Enhanced economic ties with China is baked into the Liberal Party DNA, and the Prime Minister (yes, I guess he is) is joining a long list of Liberal insiders who have connections with China to make bigger deals possible.
Buyer beware. China is using diplomatic language to push for better trade relations and has tossed the western Canadian canola, pea and hog producers into the blender as bait to reduce the 100% EV tariffs imposed by Canada.
China plays the long game. Donald Trump strategizes on an hourly basis, but is two years away from mid term elections. Canada needs to play our own long game and trade expansion with China is not in our best interests.
I'm quite sure that there is no foreign market as congenial as the US has been, and that the result of turning away from free trade will be a serious hit to Canadian prosperity, at least when measured against what could have been. But there's no use pining for a foreclosed option. As for China, you're right: temptation and danger.
“Temptation and danger”.
I liked that phrase, it’s quite fitting in our current situation.
Going back to high tariffs on Chinese EVs, it’s reasonable to wonder what a new Liberal government might think about allowing some sort of Chinese integration into the Ontario auto assembly lines. Now there is temptation and danger.
Why is that so bad as long as we retain a controlling interest?
That’s how China in fact rode the innovation elevator. By inviting in foreign companies and “learning” from them.
I know that it irritates proprietors of Substack bylines to have cross chatter in the comment section veering off course, so I will keep it brief:
China has been an aggressive international power and Canada hasn’t been spared. Interfering with our political system at all three levels, monitoring the activities of those with Chinese ethnicity and allegedly running “police stations” in Canada does not align with values we seek in a reputable trading partner.
As stated above, China is playing chess moves years and decades out while our political class strategizes in election cycles. We need to open our eyes and see what is going on.
Are you irritated by our cross-chatter, PW? I l’m guessing no as long as we keep it constructive.
Back to the issue at hand. I share all of those concerns. I just don’t think every Chinese company is necessarily an arm of the CCP and that carefully designed JVs could be fruitful. I’m not expert on any of this though.
I've actually been surprised at how rarely I have to intervene in any comment thread here. I gave one subscriber a one-day imposed cooling-off period, and that was for a very blunt personal insult aimed at somebody else. Must have been the first time I'd done anything like that in a year. Short of that, I have no complaints and I usually find the comment threads here are one of the best things about hosting this newsletter. Knock on wood.
Like Huawei "learned" from Nortel.
Ya, and guess who is a going concern and who is out of business…
Non nearly as congenial and none
clearly as adjacent.
Why is trade expansion with China not in our best interest? It's a question that perplexes me, especially given Carney's recent statement on rejecting boosting trade with them. I think Carney's stance is to deny that perhaps we're looking at the dawn of the Chinese Century and just don't know it yet. Also, as someone who lived in China from 2017 to 2018, we can learn a great deal from their approach to infrastructure building. They are decades ahead of Canada in terms of technology, transportation, educational expansion, etc. Please note, my comment isn't meant to downplay or deny egregious human rights violations or Xi's own autocratic pursuits. I'm more of the mind-frame that it would be foolish for the Canadian government to ignore China, its growing middle class, and international influence.
No one's calling for China to be ignored. What many are saying is that we shouldn't be taking all our eggs out of the USA basket and placing them in the one marked CCP.
As far as the Chinese Century, that's looking less and less likely. They've been lying about their demographics for years, and their population and especially labor market are about to enter a steep decline.
100%
I think people underestimate the impact of the Chinese demographics on Vancouver and Toronto's real estate, among other things. They simply don't have the numbers and economic liquidity to show up with wheelbarrows of money anymore. All the evaluations in those markets are based on a 30-year trend started after Expo, and its well and truly over now. When the 5-year mortgages from the pandemic roll over and there's significantly less foreign funny-money in the system, there will be a lot of issues. We're going to be dealing with this right in the middle of a trade war with the US.
There needs to be a pan-Canadian 'grand bargain' to mend the east-west rift, or we won't be going into this dark night unified.
Agreed on your first point. Not sure about your second. The decline may be less steep.
2050 will hit China like a slap in the face.
Demographics are not great. As is with any country with a declining birthrate
My 2 cents: Read “Claws of the Panda” by J Manthorpe - the suspicion is well supported
Will do. Many thanks for the suggestion.
How many times do they have to flagrantly demonstrate that they are contemptuous of human dignity in general but also specifically of our sovereignty before we decide we don’t want to get closer to them? Red China is an enemy to all free people. The Chinese Century will not be a nice time. We can only hope they mess it up as have several times in their long history.
Expanding trade with China - you're kidding, right?
Where were you in the years prior to 2017-18 and then after? Were you shut out of the news while there about their increasingly belligerent foreign policy tone in different parts of the world? And how about the still unresolved interference of Chinese communists sent here in our electoral processes? Does Nortel and the widespread theft of intellectual properties of other corporations around the world by the Chinese not mean anything? Did you not hear about investors entering into business agreements, later finding out they weren't worth the paper they were printed on?
What of the two Michaels and their illegal arrests in response to a treaty we had with the United States concerning the arrest and detention of Hauwei's Meng Wanzhou?
As long as communists are ruling the roost in that otherwise great nation, every map in the free world should carry the warning used by cartographer centuries ago:
"Hic Sunt Dracones" (Here, There Be Dragons)...
Well, yes....this election is about who Cdns. want to hear on the 6 o'clock news representing Cdn. on the international stage and doing battle with Trump. The guy in the Saville Row suit or the guy delivering coffee and donuts to the Freedom Convoy. Many Cdns. already know the answer to that question.
Indeed, we do! We’re choosing the guy you so narrowly try to pigeon-hole into the TimBits box because he’s the homegrown guy with the real connection and love for Canada. Pierre Poilievre is the one who had the idea and ambition to seed the lawn, weed it, water it, nurture it, add landscaping, and watch it grow long before the interloper, Carney, with the help of the WEF, the UN climate crew, Butts & Telford (a destructive force if there ever was one), the Laurentian elite, the Chinese compradors, and the lucratively Liberal subsidized media came riding in on his British Hayter, wearing his white Saville Row coveralls and hard hat, waving his CV shouting, “Step aside, peasants, I’m the great Mark Carney. I start at the top and, oh, I played hockey.” No one needs to agree with me. Mock me if you wish. We each get ONE vote.
I don't want to mock you, and I'm actually heartened by the fact that different people see things differently and that, as you say, we can all have our equal say at the ballot box. There's an increasing tendency, these past few years, to assume that anyone who disagrees must be acting in bad faith. I actually think it's great that you see the world how you do, I see the world how I do, we both want what's best for Canada, and we both get a vote. That's how it should be. Thanks for advocating for your side, Penny. We'll see how it comes out.
I don't think enough emphasis is given to the folks who will/could make up Poilievres cabinet. Lots of merit there as opposed to what passed for DEI appointments in the Trudeau/Carney show.
I really don’t like Carney either but no one is persuaded by your merciless beating of a straw man.
Sipping one of you as I read this. Cheers.
So far, Carney has not wowed us with his negotiation skills - in fact he has displayed NONE, because he wanted to get a mandate first before even trying to tackle Trump.
He literally wrote a book specifically about what his plans are for the Canadian economy, but the release has been delayed - so we won't find out what those plans are until AFTER he has been elected.
He KNOWS he has conflicts of interest, but he doesn't want to tell us what they are until AFTER we've voted him in for at least four years at the helm.
My question to you sir, is why do you think all of the above is desirable?
GS,
I am not male.
My comment about the leadership choices available to Cdns. on April 28th is in very general terms. For good or ill, we know a lot about Mr. Poilievre's values and leadership style. Mr. Carney is a blue Liberal who has a broad and deep CV. Both represent a good choice, if they fit your values or if you think that one or the other has the skills, experience and character to meet this moment in our country.
I don't know why the release of Carney's second book has been delayed and don't want to engage in speculation on that because speculation is just that, speculation.
Have you read his first book, Values; Building A Better World For All? I understand that his views are pretty well laid out in it.
My profuse apologies for the unintentional mis-gendering.
Yes, I have read his book "Values" - I wish more Canadians had.
Here are some highlights about what he thinks the average First World person should expect under his version of Utopia:
"A radical decrease in the availability of meat and dairy — preferably a complete turn to a plant and even perhaps insect-based diet."
"Three new articles of clothing a year, maximum".
"reducing and eventually nearly eliminating the need for car ownership."
"abandonment of the wealth of the fossil fuel economy — the coal, oil, and natural gas that all of our industrial economy and much of our agriculture depends upon, absolutely and finally."
Sounds peachy, why is he not running on this....?
His second book supposedly zooms in from the macro view (First World economies) into the micro (Canada's economy), which would be a REALLY handy thing to know before handing him the reins of our economy.
...speculation aside, I think it is blindingly obvious why that book has not been released in advance of this election. He's hoping that by the time anyone gets to read it, he will already be irreversibly in power for a full term.
As I have seen you do elsewhere in another article, you are cherry-picking quotes without contest from Carney's book. These are not policy positions he has advocated for or against, just positions that he ascribes to others.
Thanks gs. Apology accepted.
I haven't read Values so I appreciate your book review.
I can understand reducing meat and dairy in our diets, not the insects so much, reducing the need for car ownership ie increased public transit and the move away from dependency on fossil fuels as a necessity to maintain life on our planet. That has been an object of nations around the world for some time but the clothing comment is intriguing. If it isn't too much trouble could you c & p the section on three articles of clothing a year? Do socks and underwear count as individual pieces of the three? This could get tricky.
The "three new articles of clothing" thing is a WEF rumination about how, if we had more durable clothes that could be repaired, transformed, rented, etc. then someone may only need to buy three new articles a year on average because they'd be able to repurpose clothing that already existed to fit their needs. It wasn't put forward as a quota :)
It didn't come from Carney himself, although I don't think we've ever had someone so closely aligned with the WEF as a federal candidate before. From that perspective, it's odd to see him as a "sovereignty" candidate because he effectively opposed reclamation of sovereignty during Brexit and the WEF is oriented toward business interests rather than borders/sovereignty.
Thanks Matt. I agree that we would benefit from more durable clothing and it is interesting how quotes become assigned and then stick without an being an accurate attribution.
Brexit is an interesting situation. Members of my English family who voted for Brexit regret their choice because it wasn't as advertised. Members of my English family that opposed Brexit are fond of say, "I told you so". The Brits were sold a pig in poke and are now looking for other bridges to the European economy. From an economic perspective, Carney was correct.
Sharon, Carney’s book dropped on my doorstep this morning. I’ll get back to you in a day or so on the three articles of clothing. I, too, wonder how this would/should be done, and does it include shoes?
Thank you HL Gazes.
Very keen to get the answer to the three articles of clothing question. Shoes, yes....so many details to sort out. :)
Every single thing on your list would make us all a happier and more prosperous people! Not to speak of recovering from our assault on the planet.
Foregoing steak for ethically-grown sautéed cockroaches might have some environmental benefits, but you'll have to come up with a more compelling argument to convince me that I'll be happier.
Very cute, but it's really not that bad. It's largely a matter of habits.
Hi Erwin, We are nowhere near solving the problems required to live "a happier and more prosperous" life, under the criteria listed by commenter "gs" from Carney's book....... and we might never get there. We may have to adapt to any changes in climate coming our way, as per Bjorn Lomborg et al., at least for the foreseeable future.
Based on the technology and so-called solutions that are currently available to "save the planet", I have decided that I don't want to be left cold, hungry, sick and poor in the dark, especially in Canada. I doubt you will find many people in the First World who are keen on that. There are lots of virtue signallers though, who like the idea but have never taken the next step to think about what it might mean in a practical sense.
Apparently, the Third World is not keen on it either as they and their leaders work to pull themselves out of poverty at home using fossil fuels, or show up at the borders of Western countries.
I suppose you (personally) could always do a test run of this utopian lifestyle and let the rest of us know how it works out. No cheating though!
I have the book also…a leopard does not shed its spots so easily. The book is not easy to understand.
Beware of face-eating leopards.
Yes, and I’d add that it’s hardly comforting that in order to get elected he’s adopted the signature Conservative policy even though he was telling us five seconds ago that carbon taxes are the way to save the planet.
Nobody is doing battle with Trump. Carney has said he will negotiate.
Yes, he has said that. He has also said the he’s flexible and can change. These are not bad things.
It's a turn of phrase. Carney, Ford, Trudeau and more have used the war analogy.
But Smith is bad because she didn't use it, and went straight to negotiating. Got it.
I didn't say anything about Premier Smith.
That is true.
Thank you for this.
In this report (and op-ed), you sought (over much, I respectfully submit) to be properly skeptical, as the best journalists in Canada have historically been wont to do.
Which is your right.
However, my interpretation of Carney’s resort to categorical (even “fundamental-ist”) language was as follows:
1) Like some (many?) other Canadian observers, what Carney has apparently concluded—and sought to identify in “categorical” terms—is, in fact, a fundamentally new situation that few, if any, living adult Canadians have had to deal with;
2) What Trump represents will almost certainly not “go away” with his (eventual) departure from “this mortal coil”; and
3) Canada really does face what has been credibly described as an existential crisis, because of what are likely enduring shifts in American preferences and self-perceptions (shifts that Trump so masterfully exploited to secure the highest office in the United States—not once, but twice!).
That he may be one of the most corrupt, venal, misogynistic (and worthless) men to have ascended to the pinnacle of the US political firmament in the last 150 years is irrelevant.
He and his movement (which has remade the Republican Party and is reshaping the sensibilities and policy preferences of the Democratic Party) are the terrible tribunes of potentially irrevocable change. As such, we probably ought to be categorical and fundamentalist when we respond to what they are doing to Canada.
(If we are to remain a sovereign and distinct polity and society).
Two fun, beautiful metaphors: the perfectly mowed lawn and the banker standing in a crater where his predecessor used to be.
They both are happening at the same time.
Your AI generated song of Carney's word salad is a banger, Paul. Maybe this will be the Canada's version of Kamala's "Brat girl summer" via a Bermuda tax haven.
I try to be an optimist, but Carney's speaking in absolutes yesterday was just not helpful. Has our relationship to the States changed? Certainly, but will it remain broken? I doubt it. Cooler heads will eventually prevail.
To your point that some pundits are suggesting that Carney is running as a conservative, I tend to agree. Yet this begs the question, why opt for a facsimile when you can vote for a party that actually believes in the remedies they are proposing? I was never a fan of Harper, but I knew what I was getting. The same can't be said about the Liberals.
Yet Trudeau moved the Liberals so far left they became the NDP. The Liberals previously were a party of the extreme centre. The times right now require an economic structural reboot and I have a lot more confidence in Carney's ability to achieve this than PP.
Thanks for the piece, Paul - you're writing a ton lately, and all of it's very strong.
I appreciate that you touch on one of my recent preoccupations, which has been a meta-narrative throughout this campaign: that the office of prime minister is a cookie you get if you said that Canada had some problems when you were 19, and then you wake up at 46 and Canada has some problems. Tons of people are saying, "Carney says there are problems and he wants to fix them! Pierre's been saying that for years! How dare he steal Pierre's ideas!", and I'm mostly over here wondering what Justin Trudeau's dad has to do with anything. Elections should be, at least in part, about who can best respond to emergent events,.
I am, quite literally, a card carrying member of the Conservative party. I believe in free markets and free trade. I voted for Mulroney because of free trade. I've worked most of my life in industries that are completely integrated into the NAFTA market. (I'm the CFO of a Tier 2 manufacturing company.) And I'm telling you, it's over.
It's sad and frightening when you lose a major customer. But, after going through the grieving process, the solution is always the same: we need to take stock of what our strengths are, and then go out and find new customers.
As a proponent of free markets I am naturally suspicious of Industrial Policy. But it is absolutely clear that the American strategy is to use its market power to extract investments and profits out of its trading partners. If we don't check this then Canadian productivity will fall even further behind American productivity, and eventually Canada will dissolve.
It will be much easier to fail at this task than to succeed. We cannot know who is best to lead us through this transition. But Poilievre is still talking as if free trade can be saved, while Carney at least recognizes where we are.
I'll be voting Liberal this election.
Poilievre and the Conservatives have been arguing for the trade diversification policies to enhance Canada's wealth and resiliency for a decade. The Liberals and Carney have been doing the exact opposite, until their deathbed conversion two months ago. Carney is now for everything he was opposed to just a short while ago, but actually deceptively so, since it will not succeed with the climate policy he announced on the first day of the campaign.
I really enjoyed all the humour you managed to embed in this article, thank you!!
The challenge of actually delivering on anything is one that plagues modern Canadian governments. In JTs first term, there was a focus on “deliver-ology” with published mandate letters. And this seemed to work for a while. But then the PMO took over everything, as they do. And they only ever care about spin, polling, and re-election, so getting anything done becomes nigh-unto-impossible. Ministerial accountability diminishes with every PMO thumb on the scale.
How else to explain the failures to resolve First Nations water supplies, or get a million trees planted, two of the more achievable plans of the last decade? And how will the CPC be different?
Perhaps Carney has taken the job because instead of being a career move, he hope to actually achieve some things?
I worry about Carney having to build a cabinet after the election with many ministers who were part of Justin Trudeau's government. Finance Minister Champagne was responsible for giving subsidies to Northvolt and Lion Electric, which were supposed to make EVs and EV batteries. These companies are now bankrupt. The Liberals and Ontario PCs have promised billions in subsidies to build EVs in Canada. Given the current situation in the auto industry, will these factories still be built? It would be nice if someone from the Parliamentary Press Gallery could ask PM Carney about this issue. I would be weary of letting Minister Champagne get involved in the auto industry.
Do you like the options for cabinet under Poilievre?
I would like to see Michael Chong as Foreign Affairs Minister. Melissa Lantsman & Michelle Remper will be in his cabinet. From Quebec, I believe that Pierre Paul Hus will be his Quebec lieutenant. Gerald Deltell will also be in the cabinet. One mistake Poilievere has made is not to showcase more members of his caucus that could be part of his Cabinet.
I have no idea who these people would be, please assign me homework
I don’t have the exact details but the majority of those subsidies were *production* subsidies so no production, no subsidy.
The Quebec government admitted to losing at least $270M on Northvolt. They also bought the land where the factory was supposed to be built. They will get that back, but what will they do with it?
Yes sorry, I was referring to the Ontario/Federal subsidies deployed in response to the Inflation Reduction Act.
I thought the Prime Minister further accentuated his view that the country is facing more than an economic tsunami, but a looming threat to the security of our country. I'm not sure his references to reverse integration and other lofty concepts are going to be understood by much of the country. On the other hand Pierre's imjunction to Trump to "knock it off" was pathetic. Paul, your insights are good but a cynical attitude is not quite commensurate with the stark times.
Canadians as a people have been bombarded with political cynicism for years with a result of taking on that attitude ourselves. That is unfortunate, to say the least, to the extent that we often confuse trenchant opinion with cynicism. I’d say that Paul’s columns are very largely trenchant. Ok, maybe 5% cynicism born of historical realities. That’s not a bad way to view life.
Cynicism can be overdone. I agree.
Last year our exports were something like $435 billion to the United States, 21 billion to China, 20 billion to the U.K., 11 billion to Japan and 6 billion to Mexico. To think that we can pivot away from the U.S. in any meaningful way in months or years is a dream, it will take decades. For now we just have to put up with the belligerent and obnoxious President for a few years and muddle through as best we can. Yes we have to improve internal trade, and nurture trade with many other countries, but we will never have a partner as important as the United States.
It does sound good when Mark Carney states that he wants to increase trade with the UK. However, the trade talks with the UK stalled because Canada would not accept any more British Cheese. The USA is our major trading partner whether we like it or not.
India seems like an obvious country that we should be doing more business with. Huge population, growing middle class wanting the prosperity we take for granted, and a large Diaspora in Canada. They could sure use our gas and oil, our minerals, our agricultural products to name just a few. Overcoming the diplomatic tension caused by Trudeau should be fairly easy, but overcoming the lack of port facilities and pipelines is a much bigger problem that will take years to overcome. And if the Liberals do win the election will they walk the current talk, or will they revert to the Liberals of the past ten years and bow at the altar of climate change. I don't trust them and think a majority Conservative government is what this country needs.
Canada would not accept any more European cheeses because of pressure from the Dairy Cartel.
The negotiations between the next Canadian PM & the USA will affect the Dairy Cartel. Trump wants to open access to the Canadian market to help Wisconsin dairy farmers.
Last time I checked Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, possibly other countries, all could use western oil and gas. The facilities are already there. The question that we might be asking ourselves is not if but when are we going to strike out on our own. In a different direction.
We have arrived at a time when geo-politics can turn in an instant. If the President were to have a heart attack and die (if God willed it so) all bets are off. Actually, betting on anything is a fool’s game. Eventually, when the world recovers from this head-spinning bout of insanity, Canada will still have to retain a strategic relationship with the United States. Burning all bridges in a fit of pique does not serve our long-term interests. I think of that most-Canadian expression of prevarication: “Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.”
Not Burning
Great piece. Bonus praise points for spurring Blossom Dearie’s voice to run through my mind with the title.
I have to check out that song. I was channeling Michael Ondaatje but I found the song when I went googling.
Not sure. Be careful what you wish for if you follow the Carney approach. Don’t give up on the US as a partner in 2 years. I don’t like going it alone with a fractured Europe and having burned our bridges with the US. We can do it and remain a sovereign Country