An excellent overview of the current situation. As a boomer who never asked for, nor really understood, the constant left-wing drift of the last decade, I am inclined to concur with Poilievre's approach that our institutions are in need of adjustment, and a sharp move to the right of centre is required. Carney is too old-school, too embedded in the institutions he helped to build, to make a significant change. It's best to vote with youth in this instance, who want a promise of something different. Whether it will work or not is an open question.
Oh yes, because 30-plus years of scaling back social housing, reducing the social safety net, abolishing defined benefit pensions, offshoring, tax cuts, and increasing wealth inequality are entirely emblematic of left-wing drifts in socio-economic issues.
I really don't like the cliche "okay boomer" cliche but jeez, you're making it hard to avoid.
Carney is too inclined to view government's role as a catalyst for economic renewal, rather than retrenching government to let market forces do their thing
As a boomer, I will take any bet,over any time period of the next 4 years, that we will never become the 51st state. I marvel at the success of the fear campaign the Liberals have been riding, combined with lack of a basic understanding of what Carney and 4 more years of this Govt means for the future of a strong, self sufficient Canada.
We certainly won't be "the 51st state", simply because we'll never be able to vote, have electoral college votes, or Congressional representatives. The GOP does not want a new very blue state the size of California.
I think many Canadians vastly overinflate the attractiveness of their country. The US has no interest in annexing Canada because it would be dilutive. All the "Never 51" and "Elbows Up" rhetoric does is play into Canada's inferiority complex.
That's what it is - inferiority. If we felt we were strong in pretty much any way we would laugh Trump out of the room about his ridiculous threats.
Some Canadians are just butt-hurt because they thought all they had to be is "nice" and the US would protect us forever to the point where we didn't need a military or any other trading partners.
As an exploited and subjugated resource colony we'd be quite attractive indeed.
In my view it is not an "inferiority complex" to note that territorially and militarily we are in a perilous position if our relationship with the United States were to worsen significantly.
Canada coming apart at the seams might give America (and/or China, etc.) some opportunity to get things they want at fire-sale prices (esp. if our currency ends up printed into snow-pesos), but they don't need to give us votes and USD while taking on our debt to do it.
Likely a particularly difficult time for Canada will mostly just allow the POTUS and friends to point their finger and say "go woke, go broke", or the like.
Absolutely. I don't even think you could get a pool started on Polymarket because nobody would take that action. I can't believe anyone takes the notion of US annexation at all seriously, let alone consider it the biggest threat in their lives like some Carney voters apparently do. It's offensive and deeply inappropriate for Trump to talk about this, but there is zero chance of it actually happening.
I noticed that the consensus was that this was nothing more than a mean joke and negotiating tactic, until Trudeau's obviously staged "hot mic" moment about it being "serious". Sick bunch of assholes we have running this country if they generated this much fear on purpose.
Thank you for writing about this generational issue and the failure of national institutions to address it without deepening divisive partisanship. Trump is not to blame for this shockingly sad state of affairs; Jack is exactly right to point out Trump's role in this election has been to expose it. There is deep social rot in every institution - meaning policy and laws that uses the public institutions to privilege some and punish others that yields increasing social division. 'Protecting' these institutions from meaningful change in the name of patriotism and protectionism is not going to produce the unifying results I hear so often from those who believe otherwise. Quite the opposite. Nothing will speed up the social disintegration faster than a majority of voters doubling down on protecting broken governance and unfair practices that screws the younger generations and calls this 'patriotic'. That is a recipe for Canadian dissolution, again, led by those who would never believe they would ever do what they are actually doing.
I wonder how much of this is inevitable with the greying of the population. Older workers and retirees generally want preservation of the status quo and stability — younger people want growth, opportunity, reform of sclerotic institutions. But this isn’t 1965 with 8 workers for every retiree, and lots of kids and teens. It’s a much older demographic situation. That must have an effect on politics.
I think we're at a tipping point, which is why Preston Manning's warning I thought was given very short shrift by our editors here considering its gravity in th4e face of a diversionary Trump. I think they have been slow to recognize this very important developing story. Once the electoral results are tabulated, it may in fact be too late to do anything other than record the slow-at-first then all-at-once dissolution of the country. Later commentators might even ask, "What the hell were you even talking about as the country laid the groundwork to be dissolved?"
Unlike previous generations that saw some tremendous opportunities arise with technological advancements into a digital economy and a growing economy one at that (with some severe downward adjustments to be sure), it seems to me this younger one faces nothing but growing constraints and loss of real income (unless homelessness is defined as a greater opportunity to connect with the land and get back to the joys of foraging). This loss of confidence by the younger generation is revealed in many ways, not least of which is the declining birth rate... a 'falling off the cliff' kind of indicator. But there are many. And we're responding to this rising emergency by painting Trump rather than our house as the threat. That threat is now baked into our institutions and governing policies while the chattering class points everywhere else as if the cause. That's a recipe for failure and we seem as a country to be doubling down marvelling and arguing about which garment best exemplifies the Emperor's new clothes.
Agreed. That entire article was a non starter. Come back when you aren’t talking like some sort of underworld thug making threats if we don’t vote for your preferred party.
The problem is… it WOULD be a shame if something happened to it.
People out west need to realize that Alberta and Quebec are half the country all by themselves so national priorities will be in those provinces half the time.
People elsewhere also need to realize that special privileges for regions and provinces just isn’t a viable long term strategy and the rather open goal of many of killing Alberta’s primary economic engine is as reasonable as having a goal of shutting down Ontarios auto sector.
It’s incredibly frustrating that Mr. Manning would write that. It’s also frustrating that he did that because that strategy continues to work for Quebec.
Jen said it right on the podcast. The leader of the Bloc being in national debates is as sensible as putting Danielle Smith there to represent Alberta.
Awesome summary of the current situation. I never cease to have huge admiration for Canadian post boomers and especially the hope and faith shown by young Canadian couples having babies in the current social toilet that Canada has become.
I also have great admiration for China’s strategy . If I believe a recently reported item China has offered its help to Canadarney to help offset US influence. All recent indications on the topic indicate that the Canadian heifer has already been bred by the Chinese bull - leaving an uncomfortable vision of Canadian alternative futures of either an armed invasion by the US to preserve its flanks or a Hong Kong style suppression of free thought once the alliance gets formalized. The electoral results will indicate which and how fast these alternatives come to fruition - or, fingers crossed, a more positive future awaits.
To add, when people feel secure they have the option of voting in the best interests of people other than themselves. When they don't feel secure, they'll be looking out for number one. That's human nature.
There is no war, so this analogy is a strained one. All of this emotional outpouring we've experienced was simply caused by a rude bully sensing weakness, which he interpreted as license to publicly taunt our old PM, calling him some names in an attempt to humiliate him.
That is literally all that has happened outside the norm - Canadians seem unaware that tariffs are NOT a "new thing" - Canada does use tariffs ourselves as both a weapon and shield, and we have survived MANY tariff disputes with various partners in the past, ALL of which have been resolved peacefully.
There has been no invasion, there is no credible threat of an invasion, and there is no looming war.
I see this election as a choice between Carney's "more of the same" (although apparently now with a much larger budget) vs Poilievre's proposal for "change" in an attempt to fix what is ailing in our economy and put us back on track as the prosperous country we once were.
A "steady hand" on the tiller is indeed a good thing, but not helpful if it insists on continuing to steer the boat in the wrong direction.
A wise man once said "when standing on the edge of a cliff, taking a step forward is NOT progress"
The biggest thing missing in this essay and the election coverage in general is Carney’s position on Energy. I fear that he is even greener than Guilbeault and we all know how that has played out the past 10 years. He won’t get rid of emissions cap or C69 and wants to tighten methane regulations and when even Guilbeault is willing to cancel consumer carbon tax you KNOW that Carney has promised him something. Watch for the industrial carbon tax to kneecap the oil and gas industry. And with the ludicrous deficit spending (and while I am not an economist it does not take much knowledge to understand that borrowing for opex or capex does not matter one iota when the bills come due) under Carney we are going to need all the revenue we can scrape up of which energy is a large contributor. It’s going to be a long 4 years with Carney running the show
It's a myth that the O&G industry has been kneecapped the last 10 years. Production grew under Harper from 2006-2015 roughly 40%. Under Trudeau from 2015-2024 it grew roughly 35%. Not to mention the 2-0 score for pipelines to tidewater that Trudeau leads on.
There is one expansion to an existing pipeline to Tidewater that was paid by Trudeau because he made it impossible for Kinder Morgan to continue and he was afraid of the lawsuit. Actually TMX was massively overpaid because of government running the show rather than private business but that is another story. Tell me what the 2nd one is please. We should also be as big a player in LNG as the US but that was kneecapped by C69 and BC government mess under Christie Clark. The relevant point is that energy can pay a lot of bills and my money is on Carney continuing to make it impossible for investment in this country
Coastal Gas Link is the other. And it wasn't the Federal government that frustrated KM to the point that they walked away: it was the BC government. How is that Trudeau's fault? He literally bought the damn thing and rammed it down Horgan's throat, and that's still not good enough for the O&G stans.
The slightly more nuanced explanation is that B.C. was deadset against the $6bn version of the pipeline that had industry-standard environmental protections and not as much money for FN. Trudeau didn’t ram THAT version of the project down anyone’s throat. That’s the one that KM cancelled.
Instead, the federal government bought it, converted it into a $36 BILLION version of the project — with things like idling 1000 construction workers for a month at full wages because of finding some minor environmental issues, and a LOT more FN consultation and capacity payments. And THAT is the one that got B.C. and the FN onboard enough to get it built.
To me the only thing the TMX story proves is that Canada can build $36 billion pipelines. Too bad that’s at least twice as expensive as they need to be (they’ll likely sell the thing for $15-20bn and write off half of the federal investment), and realistically more like four times more expensive than it should have been.
Pipelines that cross provincial boundaries or reach tidewater are exclusively Federal jurisdiction. The Feds should have strong armed BC, through for example, legal action or withholding transfers.
That doesn't change the fact the proponent walked away primarily because of the actions of the BC government, not the Feds. KM wasn't going to sit with their thumb up their ass for years hoping the Feds would beat Horgan back, so they walked. Again, if Trudeau and his government were so eager to shut down every O&G project they could get their hands on, they wouldn't have bought and finished the damn thing.
If that's the list/meme that's been going around on social media Max Fawcett, Andrew Leach and others have blown holes in many/most of those being on Trudeau's head. Some of them are going through the review process that Harper instituted, not C-69, and are still in limbo. Others have actually received all required approvals and are instead waiting on financial decisions. One or two weren't even in Canada. A couple are phantom projects that never submitted much of anything after their initial one.
The reason that the US lapped us on LNG is that they started to build a bunch of LNG terminals to IMPORT it in the early 2000's, just prior to shale gas taking off. Faced with a massive glut of shale gas, they pivoted and converted the half-built terminals to export instead.
I'm not saying things are perfect. We clearly have an issue with getting large projects built in Canada. But this narrative that the Trudeau government did everything in it's power to kill off O&G is totally disconnected from reality.
Most of the production growth post 2015 had already been baked in. The better question would be how much additional production growth could have happened under a CPC government.
Given the nose dive in world oil prices in late 2014, the answer is almost certainly next to nothing that would have come online by the end of 2024. Cap-ex in O&G cratered around the planet 2014-2015 and has only started to recover the last couple years.
As retirees on indexed pensions enjoying the benefit of income splitting, my wife and I definitely find much to preserve in Canada's current institutions, especially the health care infrastructure which works much better than claimed in the media.
We spend a lot on a per capita basis and we're a demographically young country, yet our results are poor. I don't want American health care. But I'd certainly prefer Dutch, French, German, or Swiss health care over what we've got here. I've personally experienced long delays for surgery, to the point I showed up at the emergency room on New Years Day 1998 with a left nut the size of a tangerine, because a healthy and active 16 year old had to wait 6 months to see a specialist for a congenital hernia that popped up during puberty.
And unfortunately, I haven't seen any leader or party in this election offer any reasonable plan for how we improve or reform our system. Same goes for any of a number of other issues with our fundamental institutions like national defense, post-secondary education, the RCMP, immigration, and so on. They're all just making it rain like the good times will keep rolling, and only barely acknowledging the huge challenges we face regardless of the next eruption from the Oval office.
You can't announce changes to healthcare during a campaign. It would be political suicide. I too hope somebody figures out a way to improve the outcomes in our system.
Yes, the new sense of urgency has made things very clear. What I would like to explore is how do we, the concerned voters, convey and maintain the sense of urgency to our elected leaders, and continue to push for substantial improvements to our institutions (which of course will mean making things work better) when in all likelihood the members who are elected to parliament will want to get back to "normal" as soon as possible?
Yes, I am also hopeful of that. There is no way he left senior corporate roles where he had real impact to take on a position in order to sit around and congratulate himself. He surely wants to get some s*** done.
But we absolutely must keep the pressure on, especially where young people are concerned (housing, economic opportunities.)
I disagree. I don't think Carney is in it for Canada. He stands to gain something. He's heavily invested in modular housing, heat pumps, etc. He'll be lining his own pockets, not through salary but through policy that benefits his investments.
Maybe it's worse then making money.....it's a passion/conviction/religion to save the world thru green energy and all that that "philosophy" means. We might get hurt a bit for now but all our sacrifices/taxation during this transition will be worth it. Same as tRump....but different ideology and (mis)management. It just feels like we've been some social experiment for far too long.
People in Carney’s weight class of wealth and connections do not make investments like this. Trust me, Carney’s blind trust will make money if the market goes up, goes down, goes green, goes all-in on coal, goes woke, goes anti-woke, whatever. The money managers of the wealthy are far more sophisticated than petty corruption like you describe.
I agree with “Karman” below. Carney is a believer in decarbonization for real policy reasons, not to enrich himself. I just tend to think that’s a good thing as climate change is really a huge threat to global stability. Clearly many voters also agree.
Carney will be just as hypocritical as the rest of them. He’ll want us to lower our carbon footprint while he’ll be traveling the world ostensibly having important meetings. We’ll find out soon enough.
I know this is futile to point out but … you know this is insane right? Even in some extreme decarbonization scenario where air travel for vacation is banned and we all ride bikes to work, it would still make sense for the Prime Minister of a country to fly to meet with other leaders. Their job is more important than most other things.
We also give the PM a security detail and average Canadians don’t get that. And many other things besides.
It’s not hypocrisy for top leaders to do things that the average citizen won’t get to do under some proposed regulation. They’re the elected leader of a big country, of course they get special privileges!
B-, I agree that what you describe could be true. Another way to look at his investments in those things is: he made those investments because he determined that they were good solutions to some of our problems, and in the private sector that means sales, revenue, and growth. He’s PM now, but that doesn’t change the analysis, so he will still push for those things. It could absolutely be a conflict of interest, which is not good, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He’s not the only one who believes those technologies are promising.
Notice how Trump most recently said he had "nice calls" (plural) with Carney and they were close to making a deal? Shit is going on in the background and I don't think Canadians are going to benefit from it.
I think that's a pretty simplistic point of view. If he wanted to make even more money for himself he already had a job where he could do exactly that. He'd have made significantly more with Brookfield in salary.
Honestly, if I was him I wouldn't either. No way I'd give up the CEO's role at Brookfield to be a backbencher and let someone else tell me what I think.
Carney's motivations are a naive overconfidence in the ability for government to set some s*** done. He is a technocrat at heart with a belief that "experts" can counter market forces.
No, Carney acts like an adult. Pierre is a search for sound bites and baited rage. No, I don't like offering four more years to the same group that has been a disaster for the last 3. But Pierre comes across as toxicity devoid of substance. From his support of the Convoy onward, he has made himself more detestable. I can't vote for that.
But yet, you'd support a 'leader' who can hardly contain his (roumered) bad temper when a reporter asks a question he doesn't like. One who speaks 'down' to anyone he deems not important. A condescending, arrogant, autocratic snob who thinks any small amount of explanation and accountability is below him. The classic 'do as I say and jump when I tell you' guy. Rightttt..
For what it's worth(little I suppose) I voted for Harper in all but his last election, and haven't voted Liberal since 2015. I am anything but partisan. Nor am I comfortable about this, the most important election in our history. We'll agree to disagree but I cannot vote for a spin doctoring BS artist. Whoever wins, better hit the ground running with actions, not words...or studies.
Interesting essay. This statement: 'this election echoes other moments in history where smaller nations were forced to reassess their position alongside a larger, suddenly destabilized power. ' jumped out at me in this essay. I've heard, more or less, in other commentaries a similar statement. I'm no student of history and I'd like to know where this belief comes from, and what, exactly we can learn from other countries experience.
I get grump(ier) every friggin time I read that boomers are behind the Liberals. Boomers are not a single entity. Boomers in the Atlantic would certainly be more likely to return to the party that keeps giving than Saskberta would back the party that keeps taking. As a pollster you could have mentioned this. Ever.
Just adding to what others are saying: very good summary of the dynamics at play. The subtitle of the article (“the question is no longer about how to fix Canada’s institutions, but how to defend them”) makes the point very clearly. Really a top-notch essay.
HEEEYYY ! Do NOT compare Carney to De Gaulle !! The pack of sleaze Carney comes to the knees of De Gaulle, at best !! Completely different circumstances !
Canada is fiction. Anyone who has lived and worked in multiple provinces, particularly Quebec knows this. The are no "ties that bind us". Ms. Wente described it as the world's best hotel. Jen stated she believes her children will have to leave to get ahead. Same sentiment expressed by young Quebecers in La Presse, while simultaneously rejecting the "Canada, 51st State" concept. You hold the fort while we advance ourselves...
The USA would never annex Canada, but Buffalo (AB & SK)?
An excellent overview of the current situation. As a boomer who never asked for, nor really understood, the constant left-wing drift of the last decade, I am inclined to concur with Poilievre's approach that our institutions are in need of adjustment, and a sharp move to the right of centre is required. Carney is too old-school, too embedded in the institutions he helped to build, to make a significant change. It's best to vote with youth in this instance, who want a promise of something different. Whether it will work or not is an open question.
Oh yes, because 30-plus years of scaling back social housing, reducing the social safety net, abolishing defined benefit pensions, offshoring, tax cuts, and increasing wealth inequality are entirely emblematic of left-wing drifts in socio-economic issues.
I really don't like the cliche "okay boomer" cliche but jeez, you're making it hard to avoid.
Liebranos were in power most of time.
Carney is too inclined to view government's role as a catalyst for economic renewal, rather than retrenching government to let market forces do their thing
Makes sense since he actually studied economics.
..... and then proceeded to foul up economies of at least two countries.
As a boomer, I will take any bet,over any time period of the next 4 years, that we will never become the 51st state. I marvel at the success of the fear campaign the Liberals have been riding, combined with lack of a basic understanding of what Carney and 4 more years of this Govt means for the future of a strong, self sufficient Canada.
We certainly won't be "the 51st state", simply because we'll never be able to vote, have electoral college votes, or Congressional representatives. The GOP does not want a new very blue state the size of California.
I think many Canadians vastly overinflate the attractiveness of their country. The US has no interest in annexing Canada because it would be dilutive. All the "Never 51" and "Elbows Up" rhetoric does is play into Canada's inferiority complex.
That's what it is - inferiority. If we felt we were strong in pretty much any way we would laugh Trump out of the room about his ridiculous threats.
Some Canadians are just butt-hurt because they thought all they had to be is "nice" and the US would protect us forever to the point where we didn't need a military or any other trading partners.
As an exploited and subjugated resource colony we'd be quite attractive indeed.
In my view it is not an "inferiority complex" to note that territorially and militarily we are in a perilous position if our relationship with the United States were to worsen significantly.
This. Clearly this.
Canada coming apart at the seams might give America (and/or China, etc.) some opportunity to get things they want at fire-sale prices (esp. if our currency ends up printed into snow-pesos), but they don't need to give us votes and USD while taking on our debt to do it.
Likely a particularly difficult time for Canada will mostly just allow the POTUS and friends to point their finger and say "go woke, go broke", or the like.
.... "go woke, go broke" has already found a permanent home in Canada.
Absolutely. I don't even think you could get a pool started on Polymarket because nobody would take that action. I can't believe anyone takes the notion of US annexation at all seriously, let alone consider it the biggest threat in their lives like some Carney voters apparently do. It's offensive and deeply inappropriate for Trump to talk about this, but there is zero chance of it actually happening.
I noticed that the consensus was that this was nothing more than a mean joke and negotiating tactic, until Trudeau's obviously staged "hot mic" moment about it being "serious". Sick bunch of assholes we have running this country if they generated this much fear on purpose.
Thank you for writing about this generational issue and the failure of national institutions to address it without deepening divisive partisanship. Trump is not to blame for this shockingly sad state of affairs; Jack is exactly right to point out Trump's role in this election has been to expose it. There is deep social rot in every institution - meaning policy and laws that uses the public institutions to privilege some and punish others that yields increasing social division. 'Protecting' these institutions from meaningful change in the name of patriotism and protectionism is not going to produce the unifying results I hear so often from those who believe otherwise. Quite the opposite. Nothing will speed up the social disintegration faster than a majority of voters doubling down on protecting broken governance and unfair practices that screws the younger generations and calls this 'patriotic'. That is a recipe for Canadian dissolution, again, led by those who would never believe they would ever do what they are actually doing.
I wonder how much of this is inevitable with the greying of the population. Older workers and retirees generally want preservation of the status quo and stability — younger people want growth, opportunity, reform of sclerotic institutions. But this isn’t 1965 with 8 workers for every retiree, and lots of kids and teens. It’s a much older demographic situation. That must have an effect on politics.
I think we're at a tipping point, which is why Preston Manning's warning I thought was given very short shrift by our editors here considering its gravity in th4e face of a diversionary Trump. I think they have been slow to recognize this very important developing story. Once the electoral results are tabulated, it may in fact be too late to do anything other than record the slow-at-first then all-at-once dissolution of the country. Later commentators might even ask, "What the hell were you even talking about as the country laid the groundwork to be dissolved?"
Unlike previous generations that saw some tremendous opportunities arise with technological advancements into a digital economy and a growing economy one at that (with some severe downward adjustments to be sure), it seems to me this younger one faces nothing but growing constraints and loss of real income (unless homelessness is defined as a greater opportunity to connect with the land and get back to the joys of foraging). This loss of confidence by the younger generation is revealed in many ways, not least of which is the declining birth rate... a 'falling off the cliff' kind of indicator. But there are many. And we're responding to this rising emergency by painting Trump rather than our house as the threat. That threat is now baked into our institutions and governing policies while the chattering class points everywhere else as if the cause. That's a recipe for failure and we seem as a country to be doubling down marvelling and arguing about which garment best exemplifies the Emperor's new clothes.
Preston Manning’s warning was ignored because intentional not, it was a threat to destroy the country if we didn’t vote for his preferred party.
I lost all patience for crap like that in 1995.
Agreed. That entire article was a non starter. Come back when you aren’t talking like some sort of underworld thug making threats if we don’t vote for your preferred party.
Nice country you got there. Shame if something should happen to it.
The problem is… it WOULD be a shame if something happened to it.
People out west need to realize that Alberta and Quebec are half the country all by themselves so national priorities will be in those provinces half the time.
People elsewhere also need to realize that special privileges for regions and provinces just isn’t a viable long term strategy and the rather open goal of many of killing Alberta’s primary economic engine is as reasonable as having a goal of shutting down Ontarios auto sector.
It’s incredibly frustrating that Mr. Manning would write that. It’s also frustrating that he did that because that strategy continues to work for Quebec.
Jen said it right on the podcast. The leader of the Bloc being in national debates is as sensible as putting Danielle Smith there to represent Alberta.
Awesome summary of the current situation. I never cease to have huge admiration for Canadian post boomers and especially the hope and faith shown by young Canadian couples having babies in the current social toilet that Canada has become.
I also have great admiration for China’s strategy . If I believe a recently reported item China has offered its help to Canadarney to help offset US influence. All recent indications on the topic indicate that the Canadian heifer has already been bred by the Chinese bull - leaving an uncomfortable vision of Canadian alternative futures of either an armed invasion by the US to preserve its flanks or a Hong Kong style suppression of free thought once the alliance gets formalized. The electoral results will indicate which and how fast these alternatives come to fruition - or, fingers crossed, a more positive future awaits.
To add, when people feel secure they have the option of voting in the best interests of people other than themselves. When they don't feel secure, they'll be looking out for number one. That's human nature.
There is no war, so this analogy is a strained one. All of this emotional outpouring we've experienced was simply caused by a rude bully sensing weakness, which he interpreted as license to publicly taunt our old PM, calling him some names in an attempt to humiliate him.
That is literally all that has happened outside the norm - Canadians seem unaware that tariffs are NOT a "new thing" - Canada does use tariffs ourselves as both a weapon and shield, and we have survived MANY tariff disputes with various partners in the past, ALL of which have been resolved peacefully.
There has been no invasion, there is no credible threat of an invasion, and there is no looming war.
I see this election as a choice between Carney's "more of the same" (although apparently now with a much larger budget) vs Poilievre's proposal for "change" in an attempt to fix what is ailing in our economy and put us back on track as the prosperous country we once were.
A "steady hand" on the tiller is indeed a good thing, but not helpful if it insists on continuing to steer the boat in the wrong direction.
A wise man once said "when standing on the edge of a cliff, taking a step forward is NOT progress"
The biggest thing missing in this essay and the election coverage in general is Carney’s position on Energy. I fear that he is even greener than Guilbeault and we all know how that has played out the past 10 years. He won’t get rid of emissions cap or C69 and wants to tighten methane regulations and when even Guilbeault is willing to cancel consumer carbon tax you KNOW that Carney has promised him something. Watch for the industrial carbon tax to kneecap the oil and gas industry. And with the ludicrous deficit spending (and while I am not an economist it does not take much knowledge to understand that borrowing for opex or capex does not matter one iota when the bills come due) under Carney we are going to need all the revenue we can scrape up of which energy is a large contributor. It’s going to be a long 4 years with Carney running the show
It's a myth that the O&G industry has been kneecapped the last 10 years. Production grew under Harper from 2006-2015 roughly 40%. Under Trudeau from 2015-2024 it grew roughly 35%. Not to mention the 2-0 score for pipelines to tidewater that Trudeau leads on.
There is one expansion to an existing pipeline to Tidewater that was paid by Trudeau because he made it impossible for Kinder Morgan to continue and he was afraid of the lawsuit. Actually TMX was massively overpaid because of government running the show rather than private business but that is another story. Tell me what the 2nd one is please. We should also be as big a player in LNG as the US but that was kneecapped by C69 and BC government mess under Christie Clark. The relevant point is that energy can pay a lot of bills and my money is on Carney continuing to make it impossible for investment in this country
Coastal Gas Link is the other. And it wasn't the Federal government that frustrated KM to the point that they walked away: it was the BC government. How is that Trudeau's fault? He literally bought the damn thing and rammed it down Horgan's throat, and that's still not good enough for the O&G stans.
As far as LNG and the US lapping us, see below.
The slightly more nuanced explanation is that B.C. was deadset against the $6bn version of the pipeline that had industry-standard environmental protections and not as much money for FN. Trudeau didn’t ram THAT version of the project down anyone’s throat. That’s the one that KM cancelled.
Instead, the federal government bought it, converted it into a $36 BILLION version of the project — with things like idling 1000 construction workers for a month at full wages because of finding some minor environmental issues, and a LOT more FN consultation and capacity payments. And THAT is the one that got B.C. and the FN onboard enough to get it built.
To me the only thing the TMX story proves is that Canada can build $36 billion pipelines. Too bad that’s at least twice as expensive as they need to be (they’ll likely sell the thing for $15-20bn and write off half of the federal investment), and realistically more like four times more expensive than it should have been.
Pipelines that cross provincial boundaries or reach tidewater are exclusively Federal jurisdiction. The Feds should have strong armed BC, through for example, legal action or withholding transfers.
That doesn't change the fact the proponent walked away primarily because of the actions of the BC government, not the Feds. KM wasn't going to sit with their thumb up their ass for years hoping the Feds would beat Horgan back, so they walked. Again, if Trudeau and his government were so eager to shut down every O&G project they could get their hands on, they wouldn't have bought and finished the damn thing.
18 LNG projects were proposed during JT's time in office.
ONE was actually built.
For reference, during the exact same time period, the USA went from being a net importer of LNG to being the worlds's largest exporter of LNG.
Yes, the industry has grown, but it grew far less than it was planning to or capable of.
Numerous projects have been shelved, due to over-regulation, overtly anti-development regulations, and shifting regulations.
If that's the list/meme that's been going around on social media Max Fawcett, Andrew Leach and others have blown holes in many/most of those being on Trudeau's head. Some of them are going through the review process that Harper instituted, not C-69, and are still in limbo. Others have actually received all required approvals and are instead waiting on financial decisions. One or two weren't even in Canada. A couple are phantom projects that never submitted much of anything after their initial one.
The reason that the US lapped us on LNG is that they started to build a bunch of LNG terminals to IMPORT it in the early 2000's, just prior to shale gas taking off. Faced with a massive glut of shale gas, they pivoted and converted the half-built terminals to export instead.
I'm not saying things are perfect. We clearly have an issue with getting large projects built in Canada. But this narrative that the Trudeau government did everything in it's power to kill off O&G is totally disconnected from reality.
Most of the production growth post 2015 had already been baked in. The better question would be how much additional production growth could have happened under a CPC government.
Given the nose dive in world oil prices in late 2014, the answer is almost certainly next to nothing that would have come online by the end of 2024. Cap-ex in O&G cratered around the planet 2014-2015 and has only started to recover the last couple years.
An excellent assessment. Bravo to Gregory Jack and The Line.
Canada United? We've never been more divided.
Woe, Canada.
A good, thoughtful essay.
As retirees on indexed pensions enjoying the benefit of income splitting, my wife and I definitely find much to preserve in Canada's current institutions, especially the health care infrastructure which works much better than claimed in the media.
It's not the media. Our health care system genuinely sucks when compared to our international peers: https://cdhowe.org/publication/troubling-diagnosis-comparing-canadas-healthcare-with-international-peers/
We spend a lot on a per capita basis and we're a demographically young country, yet our results are poor. I don't want American health care. But I'd certainly prefer Dutch, French, German, or Swiss health care over what we've got here. I've personally experienced long delays for surgery, to the point I showed up at the emergency room on New Years Day 1998 with a left nut the size of a tangerine, because a healthy and active 16 year old had to wait 6 months to see a specialist for a congenital hernia that popped up during puberty.
And unfortunately, I haven't seen any leader or party in this election offer any reasonable plan for how we improve or reform our system. Same goes for any of a number of other issues with our fundamental institutions like national defense, post-secondary education, the RCMP, immigration, and so on. They're all just making it rain like the good times will keep rolling, and only barely acknowledging the huge challenges we face regardless of the next eruption from the Oval office.
You can't announce changes to healthcare during a campaign. It would be political suicide. I too hope somebody figures out a way to improve the outcomes in our system.
Yup, just like Kim Campbell said: elections are no time to discuss serious issues. And we wonder why we get such poor governance.
Yes, the new sense of urgency has made things very clear. What I would like to explore is how do we, the concerned voters, convey and maintain the sense of urgency to our elected leaders, and continue to push for substantial improvements to our institutions (which of course will mean making things work better) when in all likelihood the members who are elected to parliament will want to get back to "normal" as soon as possible?
That is where Carney comes in.
Yes, I am also hopeful of that. There is no way he left senior corporate roles where he had real impact to take on a position in order to sit around and congratulate himself. He surely wants to get some s*** done.
But we absolutely must keep the pressure on, especially where young people are concerned (housing, economic opportunities.)
I disagree. I don't think Carney is in it for Canada. He stands to gain something. He's heavily invested in modular housing, heat pumps, etc. He'll be lining his own pockets, not through salary but through policy that benefits his investments.
Maybe it's worse then making money.....it's a passion/conviction/religion to save the world thru green energy and all that that "philosophy" means. We might get hurt a bit for now but all our sacrifices/taxation during this transition will be worth it. Same as tRump....but different ideology and (mis)management. It just feels like we've been some social experiment for far too long.
Yes, that too. There is definitely a control factor as well.
People in Carney’s weight class of wealth and connections do not make investments like this. Trust me, Carney’s blind trust will make money if the market goes up, goes down, goes green, goes all-in on coal, goes woke, goes anti-woke, whatever. The money managers of the wealthy are far more sophisticated than petty corruption like you describe.
I agree with “Karman” below. Carney is a believer in decarbonization for real policy reasons, not to enrich himself. I just tend to think that’s a good thing as climate change is really a huge threat to global stability. Clearly many voters also agree.
Carney will be just as hypocritical as the rest of them. He’ll want us to lower our carbon footprint while he’ll be traveling the world ostensibly having important meetings. We’ll find out soon enough.
I know this is futile to point out but … you know this is insane right? Even in some extreme decarbonization scenario where air travel for vacation is banned and we all ride bikes to work, it would still make sense for the Prime Minister of a country to fly to meet with other leaders. Their job is more important than most other things.
We also give the PM a security detail and average Canadians don’t get that. And many other things besides.
It’s not hypocrisy for top leaders to do things that the average citizen won’t get to do under some proposed regulation. They’re the elected leader of a big country, of course they get special privileges!
B-, I agree that what you describe could be true. Another way to look at his investments in those things is: he made those investments because he determined that they were good solutions to some of our problems, and in the private sector that means sales, revenue, and growth. He’s PM now, but that doesn’t change the analysis, so he will still push for those things. It could absolutely be a conflict of interest, which is not good, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He’s not the only one who believes those technologies are promising.
He really should have taken the high road and disclosed his assets up front. The fact that he refused to is very telling.
Notice how Trump most recently said he had "nice calls" (plural) with Carney and they were close to making a deal? Shit is going on in the background and I don't think Canadians are going to benefit from it.
I think that's a pretty simplistic point of view. If he wanted to make even more money for himself he already had a job where he could do exactly that. He'd have made significantly more with Brookfield in salary.
Possibly, but I don’t trust his intentions in getting into politics, particularly since he has demonstrated no interest in becoming just a lowly MP.
Honestly, if I was him I wouldn't either. No way I'd give up the CEO's role at Brookfield to be a backbencher and let someone else tell me what I think.
I think this is wildly uncharitable.
Carney's motivations are a naive overconfidence in the ability for government to set some s*** done. He is a technocrat at heart with a belief that "experts" can counter market forces.
No, Carney acts like an adult. Pierre is a search for sound bites and baited rage. No, I don't like offering four more years to the same group that has been a disaster for the last 3. But Pierre comes across as toxicity devoid of substance. From his support of the Convoy onward, he has made himself more detestable. I can't vote for that.
Tell me you haven't been listening to Poilievre at all without saying it explicitly.
Oh, you just did.
My opinion is based on Pierre's rallies, his answers to reporters and his behaviour in the house.
But yet, you'd support a 'leader' who can hardly contain his (roumered) bad temper when a reporter asks a question he doesn't like. One who speaks 'down' to anyone he deems not important. A condescending, arrogant, autocratic snob who thinks any small amount of explanation and accountability is below him. The classic 'do as I say and jump when I tell you' guy. Rightttt..
That's Pierre to "T". And if your whole point is based on "rumoured"......
Clearly you are a blind partisan. Enjoy the decline my friend
For what it's worth(little I suppose) I voted for Harper in all but his last election, and haven't voted Liberal since 2015. I am anything but partisan. Nor am I comfortable about this, the most important election in our history. We'll agree to disagree but I cannot vote for a spin doctoring BS artist. Whoever wins, better hit the ground running with actions, not words...or studies.
Interesting essay. This statement: 'this election echoes other moments in history where smaller nations were forced to reassess their position alongside a larger, suddenly destabilized power. ' jumped out at me in this essay. I've heard, more or less, in other commentaries a similar statement. I'm no student of history and I'd like to know where this belief comes from, and what, exactly we can learn from other countries experience.
I get grump(ier) every friggin time I read that boomers are behind the Liberals. Boomers are not a single entity. Boomers in the Atlantic would certainly be more likely to return to the party that keeps giving than Saskberta would back the party that keeps taking. As a pollster you could have mentioned this. Ever.
Just adding to what others are saying: very good summary of the dynamics at play. The subtitle of the article (“the question is no longer about how to fix Canada’s institutions, but how to defend them”) makes the point very clearly. Really a top-notch essay.
HEEEYYY ! Do NOT compare Carney to De Gaulle !! The pack of sleaze Carney comes to the knees of De Gaulle, at best !! Completely different circumstances !
This is smart and cuts to certain essential points. Worth rereading.
Are generations so divided because people are simply living longer?
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Canada is fiction. Anyone who has lived and worked in multiple provinces, particularly Quebec knows this. The are no "ties that bind us". Ms. Wente described it as the world's best hotel. Jen stated she believes her children will have to leave to get ahead. Same sentiment expressed by young Quebecers in La Presse, while simultaneously rejecting the "Canada, 51st State" concept. You hold the fort while we advance ourselves...
The USA would never annex Canada, but Buffalo (AB & SK)?
Get your Alberta 51 cap on amazon.ca!