“Everything we’re doing is excellent. Everything we’ve done is excellent. Everything we will do is excellent. Also, did you hear about the speech in Davos?”
This is a formidable essay, and a wonderful summary of the podcast that came out last week by Matt & Jen.
In my opinion, this is Jen at her best; inside the issue, not at its periphery.
Organizational excellence is about leadership, and leadership involves managing expectations and relationships.
Jen made a point in the podcast that was stellar: that is, when Ms. Gladu and Mr. Carney were meeting and chatting while being photographed on separate chesterfields, Ms. Gladu appeared to be a person being listened to, and Mr. Carney appeared to be earnestly & authentically listening.
It is a stellar observation overlooked by many, including myself.
Not contained in the essay is an account of the real reason a Country like Canada, with so much promise and potential, can lag so far behind the rest of the world, and the ruling Party be re-elected five times in a row, these latest by-elections serving as the fifth.
The reason, is because Canadians desire the myth, instead of the harsh reality; they prefer the notion of some sense of superiority, to the evidence that they have again, and again, fallen for the ruse.
That, my friends, is the true magic power of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Perhaps it is also that power in Canada is so concentrated, and the public is so irrelevant, that one on one schmoozing skills are more effective in achieving control than actual accomplishments, character, or ideas.
A mandarin who has achieved career success by stroking the powerful is the archetype of Canadian leadership, exactly the way that a showman who appeals to the masses is the archetype of American leadership.
As someone who has been disappointed with the voter support for his own Independent candidacies, I would say that you are under-estimating the sophistication of voters. Voters understand that Canada is a federation and that Prime Ministers wield so much personal power that a change in Prime Minister can be highly consequential regardless of the same power otherwise remaining in power.
After spending years of blaming Justin Trudeau personally for all of Canada's societal ills, the Poilievre Conservatives have in the past year switched back and forth between accusing Carney of being a fraud in his non-political career (something that no non-Conservative believes) and arguing that Carney does not really matter because it's the same party machinery that keeps governing the country (a point which ignores Prime Ministerial power). The Carney Liberal government would probably be more vulnerable if the Conservatives were more focused on the actual legislative record of his government,.
I do not think I have underestimated the sophistication of the Canadian voter. In fact, if anything, I have underestimated their abject stupidity.
Yes, a change in Prime Minister would result in substantive change; Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a deeper bench, solid, effective, common sense policies, and Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything.
I think you may have underestimated the abject stupidity of the CPC...who chose to keep a leader who lost a 20-point lead in the polls leading up to an election he was begging for, and just got thumped in three by-elections. Further, you can't claim the CPC has a deeper bench when none of its members has held a meaningful government position in 11 years. They're largely completely untested. You complain that Carney has stolen a bunch of CPC ideas, and complain that he's implementing them. Pierre hasn't been right about anything because he's never been in a position to act. That isn't likely to change.
Your comments here demonstrate everything that is wrong with the Conservative mindset these days. The "I am perfect" mentality of the Poilievre Conservatives is precisely what cost them the election. Is it really so unbelievable that such smug condescension does not rub off well on a plurality of voters?
Canadians do NOT understand that Canada is a federation. If they did understand it, why would they expect that their province actually participate in various programs introduced by the feds but that actually intrude on provincial jurisdiction?
Further, I posit that most voters simply don't understand the degree of power centered in the PM. Having made that point about the actual power centered in the PMO and the PCO, virtually all Canadians ignore the fact that the PM does not care to discipline / fire ministers who fail in their portfolios.
So, yes, the PM has great power - greater than the US President, actually - but he uses it to maintain his party in power and does not use it to ensure good governance.
You write, "If they did understand it, why would they expect that their province actually participate in various programs introduced by the feds but that actually intrude on provincial jurisdiction?"
This is a confusing question for me. My simple point is that (most) Canadians understand that no one government is solely responsible for their quality of life. That they may not understand certain nuances of federal responsibility (or that they support informal workarounds for federal control outside of assigned jurisdiction) does not contradict my point that they understand the simple reality that there are divisions of powers that dilute any one government's fault for bad outcomes.
You write, "Having made that point about the actual power centered in the PMO and the PCO, virtually all Canadians ignore the fact that the PM does not care to discipline / fire ministers who fail in their portfolios."
I also find this to be a confusing counterpoint. More often than not, ministers fail in their portfolios precisely *because* they are to a fault dutifully following the orders of the Big Boss. Ministers are more likely sycophants, or at least loyal soldiers, than the rest of caucus, so for human reasons Prime Ministers are reluctant to throw them to the lions in response to failure, and will more quietly move them around in eventual Cabinet shuffles instead.
I am not informed as to how well Carney manages his Cabinet, but my simple point is that regardless he is the Big Boss and he is imposing his will on the party, more than the party is imposing its will on him. The Conservatives are telling us that the change in the Big Boss is making absolutely no difference in policies (or at least in outcomes), even though all experience with Canadian politics tells us that almost all policy changes the Big Boss wants to make are going to inevitably happen. If anyone is no mere cog in a machine, that's the Prime Minister.
The CPC are His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and they need to do two things IMHO: jettison the social conservative branch - they make up 18% of the voters out there. The other 82% are conservative voters like me who haven't supported or voted CPC since Harper. Everyone loves a myth and it's time to bust those myths with some sweet succulent truth, don't you think? Also Jettison PP - he can't close the deal - he's not the guy. They need someone from outside the party.
Social conservative positions "the CPCs of today" are advocating was my request.
The fact that you had to reach back thirty years to find an example is hilarious. (and by the way, that was literally just one guy, NOT a party policy position)
You are arguing my point for me - the Conservatives have indeed negated the social conservatives amongst them, by completely removing social conservatism from their policy positions.
I'd like to see them start acting like an effective opposition party: drop the stupid slogans and partisan "gotcha" attacks that characterized their approach during the Trudeau years, and engage in more of the substantive attacks and criticisms of the kind advanced by Michelle Rempel Garner. There's a rich vein of dysfunction and failure in areas like the immigration system and criminal justice, and there'll be plenty of opportunities to hammer the Liberals on defense.
I think Trudeau was a sitting duck, and a lame one at that. I think another Conservative leader could've done the same, with messaging that would've been less off-putting and could've won the 2025 election. One way or another, Poilievre lost in 2025. He failed. His approach was insufficient to the task.
You could say that the Liberal caucus, slow to move as it was, deserves as much credit for driving Trudeau out of office as Poilievre does. You could also say that Poilievre owes his initial lead more to luck than to personal skill, given that most Conservative leaders do not face off against a Liberal incumbent who in his last years was exceptionally aimless in his plans for the future.
Trudeau might have also resigned sooner were it not a matter of pride for him to face off against such a destetsable opposition leader.
Would that it were so. But like most things political in Canada it’s an illusion. Only Great Britain parliamentarians gets to deal with a real King or Queen. Canadian representatives get to deal with figureheads (Governors General) hired and fired by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in turn is chosen from MPs whose candidacies were chosen and/or approved by the PM him/herself. So in effect you have an elected dictatorship in a closed system with no public input. You might as well have a crashed cargo airplane in the jungle and be loyal to it. Put another way, as the late great First Nation Chief Dan George put it in The Outlaw Josie Wales, “They took my horse and made him surrender”…
They know how to make people who live by looting Canadians who do real work feel good. Unfortunately, that may be enough for a workable government. For a while.
As the people who do real work and build real things take their time and money elsewhere, reality waits in the wings.
Great column. It sure would be nice if Carney was asked the questions you're asking. Maybe even the PPG - I've looked but I can't find anything so I am wondering with the PPG is going to start holding the PM accountable by asking those same questions. The guy was damned well coronated and once again, Canadians are falling for the same crap.
I really hope that some of the "we'll see if Carney delivers" journalists would put out a committed date when they will review Carney for actual outputs, not just promises or spending on paperwork. And, even better, define some of the outputs they are hoping for.
I notice on paragraph 16 that you refer to the Canada US Mexico trade agreement as CUMSA. Is that a Freudian slip for what the Libs will do to Canada now that they will control the government agenda?
It really irritates me that Jen always refers to the agreement as CUMSA instead of CUSMA or even USMCA. As if she doesn't know what the acronym is. Its just sounds stupid. Shouldn't someone so enmeshed in the political infrastructure be able to remember a simple acronym?
Actually, Joanne, the correct acronym is USMCA. The old free trade agreement was under negotiation with the three countries and Canada, as usual, was a real laggard. Then the US and Mexico struck a bilateral agreement and Canada panicked and begged and bloviated and became a party to the agreement struck by the US and Mexico, i.e. USM, so the correct acronym, as above, is USMCA.
The only way that it is CUSMA is if Canada ignores reality and breaks it's arm to pat itself on the back by putting Canada first in the list of countries.
Typical Canuck action. All reaction, terrifically little action and then claim credit where damned little credit is due.
Guys, I maken a point of changing the acronym every single time I write or speak it because it amuses me to do so. I am, frankly, surprised more of you did not catch this breadcrumb. J.
Two bubbles, both out of touch with reality. The Liberals not acknowledging they will need actual measurable progress, the Conservatives ignoring the significance of people who work close up with Poilievre and Carney and whose full time job is understanding the challenges facing Canada crossing the floor and telling us they think Carney is the best option to face them.
Your cookies and coffee point says something else too. Liberals give $10 a day childcare and dental care and other freebies, Conservatives say “up to you”. Sharing the wealth versus personal accountability. Someone needs to focus on wealth creation to open the floor to either option being sustainable, but the different emphasis is consistent at least. Also inclusiveness (Gladu even) versus ideology. All of a piece. The differences aren’t perhaps as stark in Canada as in some countries, but they are real all the same.
I would just remind you that the people the Conservatives said "up to you" to spent literally thousands of dollars to attend that event in support of that party. I believe the delegate fee alone was $900 before tax credit. If you spent that and nobody provided you with coffee at the break, would you praise their frugality? JG
No, I’m afraid like apparently most Canadians I am more for sharing the wealth than letting it concentrate in the hands of a few. It may seem petty but this seems symbolic of the whole Conservative ideology currently, if you extrapolate from your point.
I mean, it's not taxpayer money in any meaningful sense. The parties put in conventions out of donations from volunteers. I suspect conventions are largely cost recovery exercises based on the fees charged to attendees.
So, sorry but no. This simply isn't a "frugality for the taxpayer issue." Courtesy cookies are a small fraction of event costs run by a private organization. JG
Interesting guy Sowell. However I am an entrepreneur and I have benefited more than my share from not having to pay for my employees’ education, the roads they came to work on and where my product was delivered, their health care, safety and security, the rule of law, social cohesion and many other things my taxes pay for. I don’t want to live somewhere where people are making $35000 a year working three jobs and believe it’s the fault of immigrants and trans people, or where politicians are answerable to donors not voters, where society is government of the people by the money for the money.
Could have done much better in pure $ in the US but no thanks.
If you want evidence that politicians put their party ahead of EVERYTHING it's the fact they prioritize tax benefits that benefit themselves ahead of everything.
"It seems from afar that all she seemed to require was a little kindness"
From afar, maybe.
What would convince you to change your vote in the next election? A little kindness? Now, what if you were an MP and you were disappointing thousands of your voters?
"When was the last time the leader of the Conservative party spoke to Gladu?"
I think both you, and Jen, make good points, Jerry.
I live in London, Ontario.
London has the highest unemployment rate of a major city in Canada. It is 9.1 per cent.
London dutifully votes Liberal, with the exception of the election of Conservative Kurt Holman in London East. My point is, there is something going on other than policy choices; the Liberals just do a better job of teamwork, relationship management, and the “vision thing”. Their ground game is excellent and they are consummate retail politicians.
The “free coffee and cookies” statement says so much about the Liberal mentality. Someone else can pay for it. Once again the east decides who will rule Canada. That folks is not a healthy thing.
Sorry, they are covered as part of an event fee. The Liberals decided to offer cookies and coffee to people who had paid thousands of dollars to attend an event in support of their party.
This is an utterly banal courtesy, which you will know if you cover a conference of literally any kind. Business conferences, industry associations, and, yes, political parties usually provide water, coffee, and cookies. It usually costs event planners a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on the number of people, and is typically covered through ordinary ticket sales and/or indistry association fees. This is normal behavior, not entitlement! JG
My concern is that the the LPC generally confuses their party with their country and confuses "what's good for the LPC" with "what's good for Canada".
And the LPC is doing VERY well right now. Good for them, but Canada isn't. The obvious concern is that MPs won't feel the same existential **need** to fix Canada's myriad of problems because the party is doing so well. Now maybe they will.. but we'll see and if we see that they don't, things are going to get a whole lot worse.
"We’re building the country like never before. I hope you feel it in your heart...."
...because that is the ONLY possible place you could be feeling it. You can't feel it in your neighbourhood, city, or province, because NOT ONE SHOVEL has yet pierced the ground.
Not even on the projects which were already fully approved before Carney created the Major Projects Office to "fast-track" ..."approving" them.
OTOH, while they haven't yet accomplished what they're claiming, in Canadian reality, they've just swept three byelections with bigger vote margins than they had before.
Yes; strong liberal ridings in Toronto. The boomers, which I am; a boomer I mean; did well bought houses. saved for their futures. Our young today don`t have that option. They are struggling to survive. Who was in power for the last 11 years? That is why they NEEDED the floor crossers. For their majority Government. What do you think Canadians think of the way they did it?
This is a formidable essay, and a wonderful summary of the podcast that came out last week by Matt & Jen.
In my opinion, this is Jen at her best; inside the issue, not at its periphery.
Organizational excellence is about leadership, and leadership involves managing expectations and relationships.
Jen made a point in the podcast that was stellar: that is, when Ms. Gladu and Mr. Carney were meeting and chatting while being photographed on separate chesterfields, Ms. Gladu appeared to be a person being listened to, and Mr. Carney appeared to be earnestly & authentically listening.
It is a stellar observation overlooked by many, including myself.
Not contained in the essay is an account of the real reason a Country like Canada, with so much promise and potential, can lag so far behind the rest of the world, and the ruling Party be re-elected five times in a row, these latest by-elections serving as the fifth.
The reason, is because Canadians desire the myth, instead of the harsh reality; they prefer the notion of some sense of superiority, to the evidence that they have again, and again, fallen for the ruse.
That, my friends, is the true magic power of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Perhaps it is also that power in Canada is so concentrated, and the public is so irrelevant, that one on one schmoozing skills are more effective in achieving control than actual accomplishments, character, or ideas.
A mandarin who has achieved career success by stroking the powerful is the archetype of Canadian leadership, exactly the way that a showman who appeals to the masses is the archetype of American leadership.
As someone who has been disappointed with the voter support for his own Independent candidacies, I would say that you are under-estimating the sophistication of voters. Voters understand that Canada is a federation and that Prime Ministers wield so much personal power that a change in Prime Minister can be highly consequential regardless of the same power otherwise remaining in power.
After spending years of blaming Justin Trudeau personally for all of Canada's societal ills, the Poilievre Conservatives have in the past year switched back and forth between accusing Carney of being a fraud in his non-political career (something that no non-Conservative believes) and arguing that Carney does not really matter because it's the same party machinery that keeps governing the country (a point which ignores Prime Ministerial power). The Carney Liberal government would probably be more vulnerable if the Conservatives were more focused on the actual legislative record of his government,.
I do not think I have underestimated the sophistication of the Canadian voter. In fact, if anything, I have underestimated their abject stupidity.
Yes, a change in Prime Minister would result in substantive change; Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have a deeper bench, solid, effective, common sense policies, and Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything.
I think you may have underestimated the abject stupidity of the CPC...who chose to keep a leader who lost a 20-point lead in the polls leading up to an election he was begging for, and just got thumped in three by-elections. Further, you can't claim the CPC has a deeper bench when none of its members has held a meaningful government position in 11 years. They're largely completely untested. You complain that Carney has stolen a bunch of CPC ideas, and complain that he's implementing them. Pierre hasn't been right about anything because he's never been in a position to act. That isn't likely to change.
Having been right about everything is the one thing Canadians can never forgive.
Your comments here demonstrate everything that is wrong with the Conservative mindset these days. The "I am perfect" mentality of the Poilievre Conservatives is precisely what cost them the election. Is it really so unbelievable that such smug condescension does not rub off well on a plurality of voters?
Stefan, I respectfully disagree with you.
Canadians do NOT understand that Canada is a federation. If they did understand it, why would they expect that their province actually participate in various programs introduced by the feds but that actually intrude on provincial jurisdiction?
Further, I posit that most voters simply don't understand the degree of power centered in the PM. Having made that point about the actual power centered in the PMO and the PCO, virtually all Canadians ignore the fact that the PM does not care to discipline / fire ministers who fail in their portfolios.
So, yes, the PM has great power - greater than the US President, actually - but he uses it to maintain his party in power and does not use it to ensure good governance.
Sigh!
You write, "If they did understand it, why would they expect that their province actually participate in various programs introduced by the feds but that actually intrude on provincial jurisdiction?"
This is a confusing question for me. My simple point is that (most) Canadians understand that no one government is solely responsible for their quality of life. That they may not understand certain nuances of federal responsibility (or that they support informal workarounds for federal control outside of assigned jurisdiction) does not contradict my point that they understand the simple reality that there are divisions of powers that dilute any one government's fault for bad outcomes.
You write, "Having made that point about the actual power centered in the PMO and the PCO, virtually all Canadians ignore the fact that the PM does not care to discipline / fire ministers who fail in their portfolios."
I also find this to be a confusing counterpoint. More often than not, ministers fail in their portfolios precisely *because* they are to a fault dutifully following the orders of the Big Boss. Ministers are more likely sycophants, or at least loyal soldiers, than the rest of caucus, so for human reasons Prime Ministers are reluctant to throw them to the lions in response to failure, and will more quietly move them around in eventual Cabinet shuffles instead.
I am not informed as to how well Carney manages his Cabinet, but my simple point is that regardless he is the Big Boss and he is imposing his will on the party, more than the party is imposing its will on him. The Conservatives are telling us that the change in the Big Boss is making absolutely no difference in policies (or at least in outcomes), even though all experience with Canadian politics tells us that almost all policy changes the Big Boss wants to make are going to inevitably happen. If anyone is no mere cog in a machine, that's the Prime Minister.
Comment of the year.
Too much pie. Also for the CPC: lead, follow or get out of the way.
The Conservatives are His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition; they need not do any of the aforementioned.
The CPC are His Majesty's Loyal Opposition and they need to do two things IMHO: jettison the social conservative branch - they make up 18% of the voters out there. The other 82% are conservative voters like me who haven't supported or voted CPC since Harper. Everyone loves a myth and it's time to bust those myths with some sweet succulent truth, don't you think? Also Jettison PP - he can't close the deal - he's not the guy. They need someone from outside the party.
What socially conservative policies do you see the CPC of today espousing?
I'm genuinely curious.
Well ... I could go back thirty years to the 'throw the gays in the lake of fire' days if you like.
Social conservative positions "the CPCs of today" are advocating was my request.
The fact that you had to reach back thirty years to find an example is hilarious. (and by the way, that was literally just one guy, NOT a party policy position)
You are arguing my point for me - the Conservatives have indeed negated the social conservatives amongst them, by completely removing social conservatism from their policy positions.
I'd like to see them start acting like an effective opposition party: drop the stupid slogans and partisan "gotcha" attacks that characterized their approach during the Trudeau years, and engage in more of the substantive attacks and criticisms of the kind advanced by Michelle Rempel Garner. There's a rich vein of dysfunction and failure in areas like the immigration system and criminal justice, and there'll be plenty of opportunities to hammer the Liberals on defense.
That is a fair comment, George.
But those attacks were very effective.
Pierre Poilievre drove the worst Prime Minister in our history out of office.
He made the FarLeft successor adopt his Conservative/conservative policies.
He had a consistent, effective message that voters could understand, and he delivered them whilst bypassing the Liberal-friendly Canadian media.
I think Trudeau was a sitting duck, and a lame one at that. I think another Conservative leader could've done the same, with messaging that would've been less off-putting and could've won the 2025 election. One way or another, Poilievre lost in 2025. He failed. His approach was insufficient to the task.
You could say that the Liberal caucus, slow to move as it was, deserves as much credit for driving Trudeau out of office as Poilievre does. You could also say that Poilievre owes his initial lead more to luck than to personal skill, given that most Conservative leaders do not face off against a Liberal incumbent who in his last years was exceptionally aimless in his plans for the future.
Trudeau might have also resigned sooner were it not a matter of pride for him to face off against such a destetsable opposition leader.
Would that it were so. But like most things political in Canada it’s an illusion. Only Great Britain parliamentarians gets to deal with a real King or Queen. Canadian representatives get to deal with figureheads (Governors General) hired and fired by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in turn is chosen from MPs whose candidacies were chosen and/or approved by the PM him/herself. So in effect you have an elected dictatorship in a closed system with no public input. You might as well have a crashed cargo airplane in the jungle and be loyal to it. Put another way, as the late great First Nation Chief Dan George put it in The Outlaw Josie Wales, “They took my horse and made him surrender”…
They know how to make people who live by looting Canadians who do real work feel good. Unfortunately, that may be enough for a workable government. For a while.
As the people who do real work and build real things take their time and money elsewhere, reality waits in the wings.
Great column. It sure would be nice if Carney was asked the questions you're asking. Maybe even the PPG - I've looked but I can't find anything so I am wondering with the PPG is going to start holding the PM accountable by asking those same questions. The guy was damned well coronated and once again, Canadians are falling for the same crap.
I really hope that some of the "we'll see if Carney delivers" journalists would put out a committed date when they will review Carney for actual outputs, not just promises or spending on paperwork. And, even better, define some of the outputs they are hoping for.
I said a year! We've hit my mark! JG
So you have shifted from "we'll see" to "he didn't deliver"? Great! Too bad he now has a majority and there won't be an election.
When will you publish your conclusions as to whether MC actually delivered, Jen?
About seven hours ago, Ken.
Bring back 5W journalism FFS!
PPG?
Parliamentary Press Gallery
I notice on paragraph 16 that you refer to the Canada US Mexico trade agreement as CUMSA. Is that a Freudian slip for what the Libs will do to Canada now that they will control the government agenda?
It really irritates me that Jen always refers to the agreement as CUMSA instead of CUSMA or even USMCA. As if she doesn't know what the acronym is. Its just sounds stupid. Shouldn't someone so enmeshed in the political infrastructure be able to remember a simple acronym?
Actually, Joanne, the correct acronym is USMCA. The old free trade agreement was under negotiation with the three countries and Canada, as usual, was a real laggard. Then the US and Mexico struck a bilateral agreement and Canada panicked and begged and bloviated and became a party to the agreement struck by the US and Mexico, i.e. USM, so the correct acronym, as above, is USMCA.
The only way that it is CUSMA is if Canada ignores reality and breaks it's arm to pat itself on the back by putting Canada first in the list of countries.
Typical Canuck action. All reaction, terrifically little action and then claim credit where damned little credit is due.
Guys, I maken a point of changing the acronym every single time I write or speak it because it amuses me to do so. I am, frankly, surprised more of you did not catch this breadcrumb. J.
Two bubbles, both out of touch with reality. The Liberals not acknowledging they will need actual measurable progress, the Conservatives ignoring the significance of people who work close up with Poilievre and Carney and whose full time job is understanding the challenges facing Canada crossing the floor and telling us they think Carney is the best option to face them.
Your cookies and coffee point says something else too. Liberals give $10 a day childcare and dental care and other freebies, Conservatives say “up to you”. Sharing the wealth versus personal accountability. Someone needs to focus on wealth creation to open the floor to either option being sustainable, but the different emphasis is consistent at least. Also inclusiveness (Gladu even) versus ideology. All of a piece. The differences aren’t perhaps as stark in Canada as in some countries, but they are real all the same.
I would just remind you that the people the Conservatives said "up to you" to spent literally thousands of dollars to attend that event in support of that party. I believe the delegate fee alone was $900 before tax credit. If you spent that and nobody provided you with coffee at the break, would you praise their frugality? JG
No, I’m afraid like apparently most Canadians I am more for sharing the wealth than letting it concentrate in the hands of a few. It may seem petty but this seems symbolic of the whole Conservative ideology currently, if you extrapolate from your point.
I mean, it's not taxpayer money in any meaningful sense. The parties put in conventions out of donations from volunteers. I suspect conventions are largely cost recovery exercises based on the fees charged to attendees.
So, sorry but no. This simply isn't a "frugality for the taxpayer issue." Courtesy cookies are a small fraction of event costs run by a private organization. JG
Hmmm .....
"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody elses's money."
Thomas Sowell
Interesting guy Sowell. However I am an entrepreneur and I have benefited more than my share from not having to pay for my employees’ education, the roads they came to work on and where my product was delivered, their health care, safety and security, the rule of law, social cohesion and many other things my taxes pay for. I don’t want to live somewhere where people are making $35000 a year working three jobs and believe it’s the fault of immigrants and trans people, or where politicians are answerable to donors not voters, where society is government of the people by the money for the money.
Could have done much better in pure $ in the US but no thanks.
That tax credit.. ugh...
If you want evidence that politicians put their party ahead of EVERYTHING it's the fact they prioritize tax benefits that benefit themselves ahead of everything.
"It seems from afar that all she seemed to require was a little kindness"
From afar, maybe.
What would convince you to change your vote in the next election? A little kindness? Now, what if you were an MP and you were disappointing thousands of your voters?
"When was the last time the leader of the Conservative party spoke to Gladu?"
I don't know. Do you?
It's all about the feelz, not principles or Canadians.
I think both you, and Jen, make good points, Jerry.
I live in London, Ontario.
London has the highest unemployment rate of a major city in Canada. It is 9.1 per cent.
London dutifully votes Liberal, with the exception of the election of Conservative Kurt Holman in London East. My point is, there is something going on other than policy choices; the Liberals just do a better job of teamwork, relationship management, and the “vision thing”. Their ground game is excellent and they are consummate retail politicians.
Unemployment only matters if you can imagine yourself looking for work. Retirees and broader government employees can't.
I wish I could argue against what you are saying!
I am curious to see which way Carney will swing now that he isn’t fettered by the threat of having to answer to the electorate for a few years.
The “free coffee and cookies” statement says so much about the Liberal mentality. Someone else can pay for it. Once again the east decides who will rule Canada. That folks is not a healthy thing.
No one "else" is paying for it! Delegates pay money to attend conventions. The cookies and coffee are an event fee. They're not "free"!
Sorry, they are covered as part of an event fee. The Liberals decided to offer cookies and coffee to people who had paid thousands of dollars to attend an event in support of their party.
This is an utterly banal courtesy, which you will know if you cover a conference of literally any kind. Business conferences, industry associations, and, yes, political parties usually provide water, coffee, and cookies. It usually costs event planners a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on the number of people, and is typically covered through ordinary ticket sales and/or indistry association fees. This is normal behavior, not entitlement! JG
Oh Phillipe I feel it in my heart. We are building Canada from the heart out again. Welcome back to 2015.
Made me smile, and then I started to cry.
Sorry Don😥
Sorry Jen, I'll come back and read your collum when I need a dose of depression.
C'mon, I did a happy column about the moon last week. JG
My concern is that the the LPC generally confuses their party with their country and confuses "what's good for the LPC" with "what's good for Canada".
And the LPC is doing VERY well right now. Good for them, but Canada isn't. The obvious concern is that MPs won't feel the same existential **need** to fix Canada's myriad of problems because the party is doing so well. Now maybe they will.. but we'll see and if we see that they don't, things are going to get a whole lot worse.
"We’re building the country like never before. I hope you feel it in your heart...."
...because that is the ONLY possible place you could be feeling it. You can't feel it in your neighbourhood, city, or province, because NOT ONE SHOVEL has yet pierced the ground.
Not even on the projects which were already fully approved before Carney created the Major Projects Office to "fast-track" ..."approving" them.
“Canadians are builderz?????”
Actually, Dean, Canadians ARE builders.
You know, pie in the sky and such. Such incredible builders.
In their minds maybe; Not in Canadian reality. They do live in their own WORLD don`t they?
OTOH, while they haven't yet accomplished what they're claiming, in Canadian reality, they've just swept three byelections with bigger vote margins than they had before.
Yes; strong liberal ridings in Toronto. The boomers, which I am; a boomer I mean; did well bought houses. saved for their futures. Our young today don`t have that option. They are struggling to survive. Who was in power for the last 11 years? That is why they NEEDED the floor crossers. For their majority Government. What do you think Canadians think of the way they did it?
How many voters were under 60?
What's your point? If you're suggesting the the under 60 demographic skews CPC then why didn't they show up?
Actions speak louder than words. I'm still waiting....nervously, for the actions. If Alto is an example, we're in big trouble still.
As for the floor crosses, I think they say more about Pierre than any words could. Actions matter. The words? Not so much.
Great piece.
"We’re building the country like never before. I hope you feel it in your heart. I hope you feel it in your communities."
Record grain harvests, Comrade!