Pivoting from the United States and seeking new alliances will require pain and sacrifice ... and it’s not clear Canadians are willing to stick with it.
As a conservative, I believe that this message of “Growing up” is, has, and will always be part of the conservative platform. So much so that if you take the message that Mr Poilievre has been trying to get across, I believe it lines up quite well. Less government, smart industry, more wealth…
The bills will always have to be paid.
Give businesses and people freedom and opportunity, get government out of every aspect of my life… and watch us prosper.
Canadians have no appetite for actual sacrifices, for really any goal. They are willing to volunteer others to sacrifice on their behalf, but nothing themselves. What was that recent poll - everyone wants to stand up to the US but not if it costs them $500?
Re "Hello Europe!" - what happens in three years if Marine LePen is president of France, the AfD is ascendant in Germany (thanks to the globalist, for lack of a better word, policies pushed by Trudeau and Carney and indeed Harper to a lesser degree) and there is a friendly smiling Democrat in the White House willing to make a formal apology and re-normalize relations? Do we realize all of a sudden that the Trump-era tariffs aren't actually that high, and maybe the Americans aren't so bad after all?
Everyone across the board supports doing what we can to increase trade with Europe, but throwing ourselves at the Europeans like we are on the rebound and looking for a new bed partner is just pathetic.
KRM, you start your post with "Canadians have no appetite for actual sacrifices ..."
I respectfully suggest that you might have started slightly differently: Canadians have an absolute appetite for actual sacrifices as long as it is someone else and some group other than them that has to make the sacrifice ..."
We all know that nobody is raising taxes. Well at least not yet. It will be our spending power that gets inflated away, and the debt our descendants will have to contend with. In fairness, this is just like what the US is doing.
Because 4 years after that, the US could put in another Trump. The US can't be trusted until its Constitution is rewritten and its justice system overhauled. So maybe in 50 years, but they should be judged by their actions and not their words.
So the Constitution that basically says “We the People” tell the government/state what it can do and not do is to be replaced by one where the government/state/king tells the people what they are allowed to do and can’t do.
While the latter is true of almost all constitutions in the world, that’s no reason to destroy a system that has resulted in freedom and prosperity that most people in the world envy and aspire to and are even prepared to die for like the thousands of its own citizens killed by Iran to quote only one recent example. It’s like destroying all cars because of bad drivers.
The people must not be allowed to decide - they could make a mistake after all. That's why a Canadian style managed democracy is the way to go. We enjoy the immense benefits of one party rule by our intellectual and moral betters forever!
It worked great for 249 years. We will find out in November if it still exists and functions. The Constitution is irrelevant in the US at the moment. It's an unrestricted Trump dictatorship. Iran is what the US is becoming.....slowly.
Rewritten how? They still technically have more checks and balances than Canada does. If their legislative branch wasn't a uniquely spineless cohort of Republicans right now their president would be far more constrained. All the laws are there to remove Trump from power and probably put him in jail, they just refuse to use them. For now.
I'm really straining to imagine and trying to empathize with the month long panic attack Canadian boomers had when Trump started talking about "51st state". I really am. I guess it shattered a lot of people's bubble world. But I'm also on the other hand so sick of hearing about it. What's the timeline we are now worried about this happening on? Or have the goalposts completely moved. Is Lake America still a thing? I'm losing track of what we are afraid of this week.
Clearly, their checks and balances don't work. That the GOP is marching in an enabling lockstep is why the US has died. That will have to be addressed somehow...term limits, perhaps, especially for the Supreme Court. .
Look around. Outside of grocery and drug stores, you could argue we've already been economically annexed. The 51st state thing is just to piss people off. We don't reject American stores, but we (well, I) do reject their gun laws, their misogyny, their greed, and their idiotic healthcare system. It's not so much fear as anger at the complete lack of respect. We didn't start this, but I will do every single thing I can to not contribute to their economy. The average American is a fine person. That cannot be said for their government.
Your comments are snide and snarky, hardly worthy of comment, yet here I am.
You really have no idea if Canada is up to the task it faces. It is true that we have had a pretty easy ride of late. We have been able to fund some expansive social programs with the money we haven’t spent on defence. Now that that’s over, we have some hard choices to make.
I believe that we are able to make those choices and absorb the costs, financial and otherwise. Of course, I may well be wrong, but I certainly hope not.
Oh and lay off the boomers. They are not the only demographic cohort that is concerned about Canada’s future.
> Everyone across the board supports doing what we can to increase trade with Europe,
Then it seems you completely support of what Mr. Carney is doing, but it's really rough to give the LPC credit for it.
I get that. Those nincompoops gave us a decade of a terrible Prime Minister and screwed up (almost) every file that dropped in the government's lap. Traditionally, when they screw up that badly, a party gets absolutely destroyed in at least one election and the now former Prime Minister has to wear the "Mr. Pathetic Loser" badge for decades if not forever. (Shout out Brian Mulroney!)
That didn't happen. They just swapped their leader and now mostly the same pack of yes-men are still filling LPC seats in Ottawa and Justin Trudeau has a new career of having a very public mid-life crisis where he tries to stay cool forever, but for some reason he gets applauded for it and no one points out that ditching your wife to run off with the busty-much younger woman actually anti-feminist from a progressive lens and outright pathetic from a more proper lens.
Given all that, it's a pain in the neck to have to realize that the leader of those nincompoops is actually doing a very good job all things considered.
Supporting Carney? Hardly. Regarding his recent EU adventures I don't even know what I would be supporting, for starters.
What are we even talking about here? If we are just talking about trade, there was already the CETA agreement, which I understand removed 97% of tariffs between Canada and the EU, and is mostly already in practical effect despite several component countries failing to ratify it. Are we talking about free movement of people? I can think of a few ways that could go wrong. Are we talking about becoming subject to EU regulations? If so, why? If they are so great we can adopt similar measures here without their help, and otherwise I can't think of any comparable attack on 'sovereignty' the US is demanding so that would be pretty odd.
We have zero details so this amounts to something between a symbolic nothingburger that still gives certain Canadians a big anti-American stiffie while they imagine eating croissants by the Seine, and a total disaster where we end up subject to crazy foreign regulations and absorbing another couple of million third world migrants who happen to have EU passports. Either way this doesn't seem like something Canada needs. Thumbs up if he can get that other 3% tariff free without the aforementioned negative consequences though, I guess.
And sure Carney isn't as actively in-your-face bad at governance the way Trudeau was, but he has changed much less than he's getting credit for, and is far more authoritarian. In my view he is stamping Canadian democracy into the ground and creating an all-encompassing one-party state around himself. And that's the one thing he's been really good at.
(Gave you a thumbs up for making me laugh with your description of JT and his current situation)
> We have zero details so this amounts to something
Yeah, no kidding. because we're on what... day 3 of this? I suspect that day 3 of the original autopact talk were similarly short of details and similarly people could probably think of a lot of ways it could go wrong.
But going back to the main point.. yeah, diversification is vital. Not merely on the trade stuff, because we've got a lot of that with CETA. The thing gets attacked because it's not fully ratified, but those critics seem to miss that 95% of it is already in force. That said, we can do more and they are doing more.
The only problem is that it really does stick in the craw that the people who goofed around and trashed so many things, (like our immigration system), get to fail upwards. But it's self-destructive to trash things like the EU associate member idea just because of who proposed it. Focus on the positives... like Steven Guilbeault quitting after reality came calling.
At least with a proposed trade agreement it's clear that it will be some kind of agreement that has something to do with trade.
This is an announcement without a clear purpose other than to be 'closer to Europe' in some way. Somewhere between a declaration of friendship and doing our damnedest to formally join the EU. The communications have been a clusterfuck of opacity and contradiction.
Edit: like most things King Carney does, it's probably mostly symbolic and for domestic consumption to show Canadians how worldly and sophisticated he is, and how we can be too, unlike those dumb uncooth Americans, as long as we give him unlimited power.
We do not know that Trudeau "ditched" his wife, because we do not know the circumstances that led to their separation.
It's well-documented that political life can be stressful on relationships, and we know that Trudeau became less apologetic and less modest to the public in his later years in power. My own speculation is that Sophie Gregoire left him because she wanted to move on from political life sooner than he did.
When a middle-aged man gets a divorce and then hooks up with a busty young woman much younger than his ex wife there are certain conclusions that people draw because they’re generally correct.
And traditionally feminism didn’t look too kindly on rich, powerful men getting a divorce right around that time where a woman’s looks have begun to fade and then hooking up with a busty much younger woman. Traditionally feminism didn’t say “well we don’t know what kind of stress stresses were on that rich CEO”.
Given that getting a divorce is incredibly destructive for children, it’s something we should all frown upon, not find excuses for.
I also I suspect that if Pierre Poilievre got a divorce and hooked up with a Hollywood starlet Canadian polite society would react a little differently. But hey, there’s pretty privilege everywhere in the world. That’s never going to change.
In Canada, we have progressive privilege. The right people get different rules.
Seeing as the last time we made a deal with the Euros - CETA, more than 10 years ago - it was apparently signed in pencil and remains unratified …. We may have the right idea but it’s unlikely we have the time
Peter, yes, we do have CETA but MC seems to want us to become a member of the EU in all but name. Canadians seem to want such a thing but ever so many of them simply have no idea of what that would entail. Just as one f'r example, they have no idea just why the UK withdrew from the EU other than that the UK was "foolish" and no idea of how Brussels rules the various countries, etc.
As you point out, we have had CETA for some years but relatively little trade. Why that would change, I simply don't know. Truthfully, I'm not certain that closer ties with Brussels et al is or is not the "right idea" but, even if it is, how would such a thing actually help us in the here and now?
Imagine if Trudeau seriously floated the idea of joining the EU, in say 2018. I'm sure his successor Andrew Scheer would have been a perfectly mediocre PM.
But now most people support this without knowing what it's even going to entail.
I just have to laugh at the comical nonsense that is coming out of this period of long-term general Canadian derangement. It's been going on for so long now that we've lost perspective on what is sane. It's like when you've been on a drinking bender for days and think you are sober despite just finishing another 12 pack of beer because you have forgotten what sober is like.
I dunno. We still don’t have an approved and financed pipeline to the west coast, no one’s even mentioned building one to the east coast, the EU is still mandating net zero by 2050 and Financial Times and other papers are reporting a kind of luke warm response from folks inside the EU. It’s not that the ambition isn’t noble but no one on either side has decided what it means yet. Time is Carney’s biggest enemy here
I don't see how we differ. We agree that 10 countries haven't ratified it yet. I assume you looked it up and agree that 90%+ of the agreement is in force because it didn't require member country signatures, only the EU signature.
And yes, we agree that we have a trade agreement with the USA and I bet we agree that that's a good thing. So I don't see the disagreement.
Going further, I bet we also agree (because it's just a fact) that the US has put tariffs on goods covered by that free trade agreement in violation of that agreement... and that's bad.
Trade with the USA isn't a problem. It's a thing we want to have and to maintain. The problem is that the USA doesn't see us as a trading partner but rather as a subservient client state to be dictated to. Obvious proof: the silly man in the white house has denounced us getting closer to the EU as a "hostile act".
Think about what that reveals. One US ally is developing deeper ties with another US ally... and that's hostile to the United States in his mind. That's very revealing of mindset and motivation and those are SERIOUS problems for us. The darkly funny thing is... it gives us all the more reason to pursue closer ties with the EU and to view our current arragement with the USA as a weakness.
Great article, full of hope and optimism for the future. Unfortunately this fountain of hope resides with Steven Harper, former PM defeated at the polls by nice hair, fancy socks and pie-in-the-sky policies. Canadian voters do not appear to understand how prosperity is fostered or how to compete for international investment dollars. Harper urged "removing the barriers and regulations that exist in no other country". Did anyone hear his plea?
This is a very useful piece, but we’ll need to wait in order to find out whether we’re up to the task. One can “acknowledge the reality that Canada felt comfortable under-investing in core competencies”, and so we must, without constantly using that reality to blame Canadians or our leaders past and present for our predicament. Doing so clearly makes some people feel good, but it serves no purpose. Whether we’re prepared to accept the pain will depend on many factors: not simply the amount of pain or even its ostensible justification (defense, sovereignty, infrastructure, independence, stronger federation?) but on how well our political, economic, and intellectual leadership can mobilize support. Engaging in relentless carping, as Jivani and others do, whether for the sake of carping (because blaming someone else is always easier than looking in the mirror), or because they can’t stand to see a Liberal PM succeed (and hence care less about promoting Canada’s success than Carney’s failure), or because they really do sympathize with Trump and his acolytes and would prefer to see us subjugated, is neither useful nor praiseworthy.
Good post. One quibble: Jivani isn't carping, he's conniving. He is not stupid and clearly knows what's at stake. I suspect he would like to parlay his friendship with JD Vance into the job of governor of the state of Canada.
No nicknames other than “Face Painter”, then? How does that work if “absolultely none are appropriate”? I’m pretty sure I could come up with disparaging nicknames for politicians of every stripe. What’s stopping me? The knowledge that doing so would deeply irritate a lot of people that I would prefer to have a rational conversation with. As for opposing change, that’s in our nature as human beings: we love the prospect of change as long as we’re driving the agenda and pushing things where we think they should go; we loathe when someone with whose vision and ideas we disagree is in charge of the change agenda. Plenty of us who believe deeply in the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the ever-increasing urgency of doing something about it are gritting our teeth at the moment and supporting what Carney is doing because we see that current political urgency precludes working on the bigger picture, which is existential threats on a planetary scale. Guilbeault chose a different direction and resigned from cabinet: that’s his prerogative. Whether or not he accepts that change is imperative, he’s not in the charge of the agenda any longer.
> Whether we’re prepared to accept the pain will depend on many factors:
I think it depends almost entirely in how evenly it is perceived to be spread. If we're all in this together we'll hold together. If we're not...well then.
Agree, but the problem is that perception is reality, and people tend to perceive a preference for their own agendas as even-handed and anything else as unfair. That's where really good leadership is needed, especially because the situation may actually demand unequal treatment. I certainly hope our governments prove to be equal to that task. They have not traditionally been very good at it.
David, you say that one can acknowledge reality of under investing without blaming Canadians or leaders past and present. I somewhat disagree.
I think that telling folks that they must sacrifice and cannot have A or B or C and must pay much more for much less will require honesty and acknowledging that we really screwed up in the past.
Ken, I don't think we disagree fundamentally. Of course we can cast blame, and I realize that for many people that's important for a whole slew of reasons, some perhaps more honourable than others. My point was that we can acknowledge that we were dozing at the switch and that our leadership may well have let us down, but what's past is past. Of course we should be honest with ourselves and not just wave away the past, but at the same time it serves no useful purpose to dwell on it. I have no problem when people criticize our past behaviour and that of our leaders (not only political, as I said), but I do find my patience fraying when that's all people do. I'm more interested in looking forward, and I generally find it more productive. So: learn from the mistakes of the past, by all means; but let's not waste our precious time indulging in blamefests as a substitute for moving forward. How's that sound?
I am not looking for blame in the sense of "being right " or some such sentiment. Instead, I am convinced that it is necessary that there is an absolute acknowledgement that:We really screwed the pooch on that decision " or there will be serious resistance to the required corrective policies.
I say that because the Face Painter's acolytes still occupy influential positions within the LPC and are highly likely to oppose required corrective actions.
Thanks for that. I hear you. But one thing I worry about is that the moment we start using insulting nicknames for politicians we don’t like, we’re likely to get people’s backs up right away, which is generally not conducive to getting them to agree that they were wrong. I don’t agree with demonizing opponents because it’s just too easy a shortcut and tends to elide the hard bits, which are much easier to talk about if we depersonalize the discussion. As I said, it’s always easy to blame someone else for what are really collective problems (the other party, the ‘enemy within’, whatever scapegoats we want to choose), but in this life, my experience has been that no one is ever blameless. Every PM you can name has inveterate admirers and relentless detractors, so it’s almost inevitable that name-calling will start soon after the discussion begins, alas. The “we” you mention is also not the “we” of today: even those of us who were alive and participated actively in those events are not the same people (including, I think, those who occupy “influential positions”). Let’s give people a chance to discard their previous views without rancour.
As foar as Europe goes this would be the main fall out from the mystical associate member. I doubt if many Canadians are seeing this.
Sovereignty over key regulations. Aligning with EU standards (as in EEA models) would make Canada a rule-taker on trade, environment, and energy without voting rights, potentially restricting oil/gas development and risking US trade tensions.
Another excellent column, Matt. I am foursquare behind everything you have to say here.
I also have to say that one of the most pleasant surprises, for me anyway, is that I find myself foursquare behind what Stephen Harper has been saying. I never supported his government, but all that is irrelevant now.
He is showing himself to be a true patriot, and he is telling us things that we need to hear (and he has more gravitas and statesman-like-ship in his left pinky than does the current Leader of the Opposition). There are still things he has to say that I disagree with, but all that matters now is his love of country, and I am all over that.
It’s true, I worry too about Canadians’ desire to take on sacrifice. We have arguably been the most privileged of nations by virtue of sharing the continent with the US; and have been insulated from the worst of the many crises that have beset our world these past 100 years. We need to rouse ourselves from our torpor, and as Matt says, this is a big ask.
However, let’s give ourselves a little breathing room. I believe we’re no different than any other country in that we have deep reserves of pride in our country. That’s an essential part of human nature, and we’re no less human than a citizen of any other country.
As Northrop Frye put it, a Canadian is an American who rejects the Revolution. I take that to mean that we share a lot of the same assumptions and aspirations as our American cousins. Given our common origins, it couldn’t be otherwise. But having rejected something that fundamentally defines the American nation, we chose to go our own way and live as a separate people. I believe that has not changed.
For the longest time, all we’ve been called upon to do is to cheer loudly for our national hockey teams and boast about our health-care system (not talking so loudly about that, these days). But the world is a lot meaner now, and we’re going to be asked to dig deeper. We’ve done it before, and given the pride we take in being Canadians, we’ll do it again.
Inevitably there will be the usual nay-sayers to say that Canadians aren’t willing to make any sacrifices and anyway, “we’re not a real country”. Those guys are just the mirror image of all those ostensibly lily-livered Canadians. They’ve never been asked to rise to the challenge, and with their reflexive negativity they're not capable of it.
So long as they insist on falling back on their cynicism, they’re not going to see the opportunity that lies before us “to realize our true potential as a country, which … we have come nowhere close to achieving”. None of what they say is helpful; it’s just tiresome, and they should just stop. Or pull up stakes and move to the US.
Start with what I call the "Gurney" (my label) doctrine. Peace, Order, and Good Government. Via: National Security; Critical Infrastructure; and, Social Development.
Excellent piece. I think Canadians have the resolve to get through this: We supported Chretien and Martin through the really difficult health, education and other social services cuts of the 1990s.
(It's true that the PCs and Reform split the conservative vote, but I'm not so sure the right won't split again if Maple MAGA seizes control; see the BC Conservative Party implosion, the NDP by-election win in Alberta.)
The thing is, I don't know that our working-age population would even really be able to pay much more tax, writ large. The cost of living is such that I now consider the working class to basically be anyone still working (bit sweeping...but is it?) - their mortgage is enormous, food costs so much, and that's only looking likely to get worse with the current energy situation. That cohort just typically does not have a whole lot of money to spare.
You know who does? The constituency that most enthusiastically voted for Carney, the older cohort. That's where an enormous amount of the country's wealth sits, while we also, paradoxically, spend an enormous amount on benefits for them that aren't particularly well targeted to need. OAS alone costs more than $80 billion a year.
That's the cohort I'm most concerned about being willing to sacrifice. I really, really doubt they are. See what happens to a Globe and Mail comment section every time Paul Kershaw has a new article (seriously, do this, as it's rather darkly funny).
I wrote about this, weirdly, kind of before all this kicked off again (https://www.mustardclementine.com/p/we-can-do-better-than-a-downgraded). Conservatives need to get out of the past in the sense that the US is not what it once was, and we shouldn't approach that relationship as though it still is. But the Liberal side, I'm concerned, is also stuck in the past in a different way, in the overly politically self-interested sense. I'm not convinced they're willing to ask their own voters to sacrifice much of anything, or risk losing a single vote in the process, even when doing genuinely important things may require exactly that.
I don't know that you can remake a country for a much harsher era while promising the cohort that accumulated the most during the easier one that absolutely none of the adjustment will fall on them. If we're actually talking about sacrifice, nation-building and doing difficult things, eventually that has to mean more than asking younger working people to pay more for everything.
To imply that Canada has not been a normal country and reiterate for rhetorical effect rubs me the wrong way. I know you're a columnist and your goal is to get a rise. I also don't read Stephen Harpers comments to suggest any kind of agreement with the "you've got to be a State to get the beneifts of a state" nonsense coming from the White House. Canada has been a deeply integrated with the US economy for decades now and is a crucial part of Norad and NATO. We are now slowly beginning to make progress on building our defence capacity. Yes, we may have rode on the back of the US hegemonic military build up to defend continental North America. I think most Canadians understand those days are over. Right now Canadians are feeling a greater sense of unity and national pride than we have felt in decades. Carney is doing everything his packed schedule will allow to build new alliances, to change the permitting, regulatory and tax infrastructure (finally)that has held us back so we can demonstrate that we can get big things done. This is a pivotal moment for Canada. To suggest we can't do it, we're not a normal country and we might not be ready for the pain is an insult to those who are already struggling with higher costs. It underestimates our patriotism, tenacity and determination and seems slightly out of touch with the public mood.
I think you underestimate the resolve of Canadians of all ages. Time will tell. My view is that OAS should be means tested not universal. But your comment isn't particularly relevant to the column at hand.
Trade pain = less economic prosperity = less tax revenue = less services or more debt.
Last year, Carney told a room to expect pain. That room wasn’t full of boomers. It was full of students.
My point is this - do Canadians have the temerity and fortitude to do what is necessary to redirect the ship? Only until the boomers start feeling pain. I have faith the biggest voting block will happily sacrifice the interests of their kids and grandkids in support of the cause. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they’ll sacrifice their own interests.
We can agree to disagree. I wont be drawn into a shit on the boomers tirade except to say the boomers I know have in fact sacrificed more than you appear to understand to protect and further the interests of their kids and grandkids. You paint them as being more selfish than other generations which is frankly, silly. The real issue here is that being a large and influential voting block, all governments will continue to craft policy to retain that vote.
Agreed. It's excellently stated to say "Will entrenched Canadian bureaucratic norms really yield to the pressure from Carney and others to trim environmental assessments and Indigenous consultations down to something efficient enough not to scare away would-be investors."
We're already paying for the rest. Can Ottawa decrease the inherent costs of their bureaucracy and instead spend the money on seriously occupying the north and upgrading to modern times such as getting defensive drones?
Central Canada has the government they continually vote in. That Liberal government is asking them to change. They cannot blame anyone but themselves. Question - will they adjust?
"... Are we actually prepared, as a country, to pay higher taxes to support a much larger military? ..."
Canada is already a high tax country - as compared to the US, of course, but our taxes are definitely not cheap as compared to a host of other countries either. On the other hand, on the other hand .... many readers will shout, "Scandinavia!" and they would be correct that the Scandinavian countries do have higher tax rates than Canada.
I am not whatsoever an expert on the Scandinavian counties but it seems to me that they are a far more homogeneous countries that offer a whole range of reasons for each of those countries to exist on their own. As I understand matters, they all have noticeable armed forces and they all have - very unlike Canada - the ability to actually DO things.
Matt, you ask just how much pain Canadians are willing to endure. You also note that we continue to exist with NIMBYism, at least in terms of the Toronto island airport. I suggest that you find the answer to your question in the airport "conversation" which was not at all a conversation but an immediate retreat in the face of some locals who just didn't give a damn about the larger picture.
Matt, you further say that you are optimistic about Canada and that "... [t]here isn't any particular reason Canada should not be one of the richest and most powerful counties in the world ..." Well, except, see Toronto island airport, see native "consultation" that has become a veto for the loudest, mouthiest groups, see ......
Put differently, I do not share your optimism.
You note "... most of what we have working against us are things we’ve done to ourselves. We can undo them, but there will be costs for that ..." I just don't see a real acceptance by Canadians to agree to pay those costs. Hell, we can't even keep up the infrastructure that we built generations ago because it would require extra taxes to keep bridges, transmission lines, etc., etc., etc. in good repair.
By that measure Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal have higher taxes than Canada, with the UK being practically even with us. Admittedly, there are few countries that have taxes more than 5% of GDP above Canada, and the countries that have lower taxes than Canada tend to have them much lower.
Add in health insurance and we're not particularly higher tax than the US (it varies a lot by state, unsurprisingly). Indeed, we're lower tax than some states.
I am a retired accountant and I had to discuss relative tax rates from time to time with clients and, periodically, with US accountants.
Your point is certainly a good one but I can tell you that folks typically don't think that logically. When they talk about taxes they talk about taxes and don't think about ancillaries, even really important ancillaries. That is the first point. The second point is that for most folks that work for large employers their health coverage is often paid by the employer and is therefore NOT the direct cost comparison that you reference. And, finally, some folks simply choose to "go naked" at least in a medical coverage sense.
So, yes, kinda, somewhat but not always. I do know that whenever I talked to clients about moving south I certainly brought that point up.
So, to talk about taxes and only taxes, yes, we are a significantly higher tax jurisdiction. When you talk about the important ancillaries then life - as always - becomes more complex.
Thank you for this op-ed, Matt Gurney. I am very pleased that former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke in defence of the current Prime Minister, and bluntly stated what has been obvious to many of us: that the United States is no longer a reliable partner.
It was very important for the most recent Conservative Prime Minister to say this publicly, and in particular a Prime Minister who rose up through the ranks of the Reform Party of Canada and who worked hard to achieve the amalgamation of that party with the Progressive Conservatives.
I will take exception with one element of your analysis, though. After rightly highlighting all that Canadians have not done over the decades, and explaining why that was, you wrote the following:
QUOTE
We’re going to have to grow up, stop relying on others and stand on our own. And that is never fun.
END QUOTE
In my view, there is no need to be so pessimistic about the process of "growing up". Indeed, growing up is often challenging. More often than not, it does involve discomfort and sometimes great pain.
Nevertheless, I've rarely met someone who would rather that they had remained a child, and thus deeply dependent on the directions of others to make their way through life.
The pain of "growing up" is a necessary precursor to the joys of being autonomous (to the extent that anyone is) and of making choices that lead to great achievements and successes.
As such, I would argue that as much as the process of growing up will be a time of great challenge, it should also prove to be a time of great hope, and may even bring us happiness and fulfillment that we could not have otherwise managed to achieve.
Good piece Matt
Harper is wise and in tune with the situation.
As a conservative, I believe that this message of “Growing up” is, has, and will always be part of the conservative platform. So much so that if you take the message that Mr Poilievre has been trying to get across, I believe it lines up quite well. Less government, smart industry, more wealth…
The bills will always have to be paid.
Give businesses and people freedom and opportunity, get government out of every aspect of my life… and watch us prosper.
Canadians have no appetite for actual sacrifices, for really any goal. They are willing to volunteer others to sacrifice on their behalf, but nothing themselves. What was that recent poll - everyone wants to stand up to the US but not if it costs them $500?
Re "Hello Europe!" - what happens in three years if Marine LePen is president of France, the AfD is ascendant in Germany (thanks to the globalist, for lack of a better word, policies pushed by Trudeau and Carney and indeed Harper to a lesser degree) and there is a friendly smiling Democrat in the White House willing to make a formal apology and re-normalize relations? Do we realize all of a sudden that the Trump-era tariffs aren't actually that high, and maybe the Americans aren't so bad after all?
Everyone across the board supports doing what we can to increase trade with Europe, but throwing ourselves at the Europeans like we are on the rebound and looking for a new bed partner is just pathetic.
KRM, you start your post with "Canadians have no appetite for actual sacrifices ..."
I respectfully suggest that you might have started slightly differently: Canadians have an absolute appetite for actual sacrifices as long as it is someone else and some group other than them that has to make the sacrifice ..."
Haha that's what I meant in my second sentence which is now corrected.
I think that the political price of doing nothing is greater than the cost of angry voters hit with high taxes.
We all know that nobody is raising taxes. Well at least not yet. It will be our spending power that gets inflated away, and the debt our descendants will have to contend with. In fairness, this is just like what the US is doing.
Because 4 years after that, the US could put in another Trump. The US can't be trusted until its Constitution is rewritten and its justice system overhauled. So maybe in 50 years, but they should be judged by their actions and not their words.
So the Constitution that basically says “We the People” tell the government/state what it can do and not do is to be replaced by one where the government/state/king tells the people what they are allowed to do and can’t do.
While the latter is true of almost all constitutions in the world, that’s no reason to destroy a system that has resulted in freedom and prosperity that most people in the world envy and aspire to and are even prepared to die for like the thousands of its own citizens killed by Iran to quote only one recent example. It’s like destroying all cars because of bad drivers.
The people must not be allowed to decide - they could make a mistake after all. That's why a Canadian style managed democracy is the way to go. We enjoy the immense benefits of one party rule by our intellectual and moral betters forever!
It worked great for 249 years. We will find out in November if it still exists and functions. The Constitution is irrelevant in the US at the moment. It's an unrestricted Trump dictatorship. Iran is what the US is becoming.....slowly.
Rewritten how? They still technically have more checks and balances than Canada does. If their legislative branch wasn't a uniquely spineless cohort of Republicans right now their president would be far more constrained. All the laws are there to remove Trump from power and probably put him in jail, they just refuse to use them. For now.
I'm really straining to imagine and trying to empathize with the month long panic attack Canadian boomers had when Trump started talking about "51st state". I really am. I guess it shattered a lot of people's bubble world. But I'm also on the other hand so sick of hearing about it. What's the timeline we are now worried about this happening on? Or have the goalposts completely moved. Is Lake America still a thing? I'm losing track of what we are afraid of this week.
Clearly, their checks and balances don't work. That the GOP is marching in an enabling lockstep is why the US has died. That will have to be addressed somehow...term limits, perhaps, especially for the Supreme Court. .
Look around. Outside of grocery and drug stores, you could argue we've already been economically annexed. The 51st state thing is just to piss people off. We don't reject American stores, but we (well, I) do reject their gun laws, their misogyny, their greed, and their idiotic healthcare system. It's not so much fear as anger at the complete lack of respect. We didn't start this, but I will do every single thing I can to not contribute to their economy. The average American is a fine person. That cannot be said for their government.
Your comments are snide and snarky, hardly worthy of comment, yet here I am.
You really have no idea if Canada is up to the task it faces. It is true that we have had a pretty easy ride of late. We have been able to fund some expansive social programs with the money we haven’t spent on defence. Now that that’s over, we have some hard choices to make.
I believe that we are able to make those choices and absorb the costs, financial and otherwise. Of course, I may well be wrong, but I certainly hope not.
Oh and lay off the boomers. They are not the only demographic cohort that is concerned about Canada’s future.
> Everyone across the board supports doing what we can to increase trade with Europe,
Then it seems you completely support of what Mr. Carney is doing, but it's really rough to give the LPC credit for it.
I get that. Those nincompoops gave us a decade of a terrible Prime Minister and screwed up (almost) every file that dropped in the government's lap. Traditionally, when they screw up that badly, a party gets absolutely destroyed in at least one election and the now former Prime Minister has to wear the "Mr. Pathetic Loser" badge for decades if not forever. (Shout out Brian Mulroney!)
That didn't happen. They just swapped their leader and now mostly the same pack of yes-men are still filling LPC seats in Ottawa and Justin Trudeau has a new career of having a very public mid-life crisis where he tries to stay cool forever, but for some reason he gets applauded for it and no one points out that ditching your wife to run off with the busty-much younger woman actually anti-feminist from a progressive lens and outright pathetic from a more proper lens.
Given all that, it's a pain in the neck to have to realize that the leader of those nincompoops is actually doing a very good job all things considered.
Supporting Carney? Hardly. Regarding his recent EU adventures I don't even know what I would be supporting, for starters.
What are we even talking about here? If we are just talking about trade, there was already the CETA agreement, which I understand removed 97% of tariffs between Canada and the EU, and is mostly already in practical effect despite several component countries failing to ratify it. Are we talking about free movement of people? I can think of a few ways that could go wrong. Are we talking about becoming subject to EU regulations? If so, why? If they are so great we can adopt similar measures here without their help, and otherwise I can't think of any comparable attack on 'sovereignty' the US is demanding so that would be pretty odd.
We have zero details so this amounts to something between a symbolic nothingburger that still gives certain Canadians a big anti-American stiffie while they imagine eating croissants by the Seine, and a total disaster where we end up subject to crazy foreign regulations and absorbing another couple of million third world migrants who happen to have EU passports. Either way this doesn't seem like something Canada needs. Thumbs up if he can get that other 3% tariff free without the aforementioned negative consequences though, I guess.
And sure Carney isn't as actively in-your-face bad at governance the way Trudeau was, but he has changed much less than he's getting credit for, and is far more authoritarian. In my view he is stamping Canadian democracy into the ground and creating an all-encompassing one-party state around himself. And that's the one thing he's been really good at.
(Gave you a thumbs up for making me laugh with your description of JT and his current situation)
> We have zero details so this amounts to something
Yeah, no kidding. because we're on what... day 3 of this? I suspect that day 3 of the original autopact talk were similarly short of details and similarly people could probably think of a lot of ways it could go wrong.
But going back to the main point.. yeah, diversification is vital. Not merely on the trade stuff, because we've got a lot of that with CETA. The thing gets attacked because it's not fully ratified, but those critics seem to miss that 95% of it is already in force. That said, we can do more and they are doing more.
The only problem is that it really does stick in the craw that the people who goofed around and trashed so many things, (like our immigration system), get to fail upwards. But it's self-destructive to trash things like the EU associate member idea just because of who proposed it. Focus on the positives... like Steven Guilbeault quitting after reality came calling.
At least with a proposed trade agreement it's clear that it will be some kind of agreement that has something to do with trade.
This is an announcement without a clear purpose other than to be 'closer to Europe' in some way. Somewhere between a declaration of friendship and doing our damnedest to formally join the EU. The communications have been a clusterfuck of opacity and contradiction.
Edit: like most things King Carney does, it's probably mostly symbolic and for domestic consumption to show Canadians how worldly and sophisticated he is, and how we can be too, unlike those dumb uncooth Americans, as long as we give him unlimited power.
We do not know that Trudeau "ditched" his wife, because we do not know the circumstances that led to their separation.
It's well-documented that political life can be stressful on relationships, and we know that Trudeau became less apologetic and less modest to the public in his later years in power. My own speculation is that Sophie Gregoire left him because she wanted to move on from political life sooner than he did.
I’ll say this.
When a middle-aged man gets a divorce and then hooks up with a busty young woman much younger than his ex wife there are certain conclusions that people draw because they’re generally correct.
And traditionally feminism didn’t look too kindly on rich, powerful men getting a divorce right around that time where a woman’s looks have begun to fade and then hooking up with a busty much younger woman. Traditionally feminism didn’t say “well we don’t know what kind of stress stresses were on that rich CEO”.
Given that getting a divorce is incredibly destructive for children, it’s something we should all frown upon, not find excuses for.
I also I suspect that if Pierre Poilievre got a divorce and hooked up with a Hollywood starlet Canadian polite society would react a little differently. But hey, there’s pretty privilege everywhere in the world. That’s never going to change.
In Canada, we have progressive privilege. The right people get different rules.
Seeing as the last time we made a deal with the Euros - CETA, more than 10 years ago - it was apparently signed in pencil and remains unratified …. We may have the right idea but it’s unlikely we have the time
Peter, yes, we do have CETA but MC seems to want us to become a member of the EU in all but name. Canadians seem to want such a thing but ever so many of them simply have no idea of what that would entail. Just as one f'r example, they have no idea just why the UK withdrew from the EU other than that the UK was "foolish" and no idea of how Brussels rules the various countries, etc.
As you point out, we have had CETA for some years but relatively little trade. Why that would change, I simply don't know. Truthfully, I'm not certain that closer ties with Brussels et al is or is not the "right idea" but, even if it is, how would such a thing actually help us in the here and now?
Imagine if Trudeau seriously floated the idea of joining the EU, in say 2018. I'm sure his successor Andrew Scheer would have been a perfectly mediocre PM.
But now most people support this without knowing what it's even going to entail.
I just have to laugh at the comical nonsense that is coming out of this period of long-term general Canadian derangement. It's been going on for so long now that we've lost perspective on what is sane. It's like when you've been on a drinking bender for days and think you are sober despite just finishing another 12 pack of beer because you have forgotten what sober is like.
Trudeau signed off on CETA in 2016. There are still 10 of 27 countries that haven’t ratified it. https://carleton.ca/tradenetwork/research-publications/ceta-ratification-tracker/
And despite this it's still 90% to 95% in force because only 5-10% of the agreement is member-state level stuff.
I dunno. We still don’t have an approved and financed pipeline to the west coast, no one’s even mentioned building one to the east coast, the EU is still mandating net zero by 2050 and Financial Times and other papers are reporting a kind of luke warm response from folks inside the EU. It’s not that the ambition isn’t noble but no one on either side has decided what it means yet. Time is Carney’s biggest enemy here
> CETA, more than 10 years ago - it was apparently signed in pencil and remains unratified ….
Some countries haven't ratified it and that gives the false idea that it's not in force.
Despite some countries not ratifying it, somewhere between 90% and 95% of it is in force right now. That's not pencil.
We obviously differ. The same could be said regarding trade between the USA and Canada
I don't see how we differ. We agree that 10 countries haven't ratified it yet. I assume you looked it up and agree that 90%+ of the agreement is in force because it didn't require member country signatures, only the EU signature.
And yes, we agree that we have a trade agreement with the USA and I bet we agree that that's a good thing. So I don't see the disagreement.
Going further, I bet we also agree (because it's just a fact) that the US has put tariffs on goods covered by that free trade agreement in violation of that agreement... and that's bad.
Trade with the USA isn't a problem. It's a thing we want to have and to maintain. The problem is that the USA doesn't see us as a trading partner but rather as a subservient client state to be dictated to. Obvious proof: the silly man in the white house has denounced us getting closer to the EU as a "hostile act".
Think about what that reveals. One US ally is developing deeper ties with another US ally... and that's hostile to the United States in his mind. That's very revealing of mindset and motivation and those are SERIOUS problems for us. The darkly funny thing is... it gives us all the more reason to pursue closer ties with the EU and to view our current arragement with the USA as a weakness.
As you intimate, the troubles between Canada and the US are not about trade; they are about our sovereignty.
Europe needs this deal as much as Canada does. They are energy poor and resource poor. We have both. There won’t be any delays this time around.
Great article, full of hope and optimism for the future. Unfortunately this fountain of hope resides with Steven Harper, former PM defeated at the polls by nice hair, fancy socks and pie-in-the-sky policies. Canadian voters do not appear to understand how prosperity is fostered or how to compete for international investment dollars. Harper urged "removing the barriers and regulations that exist in no other country". Did anyone hear his plea?
This is a very useful piece, but we’ll need to wait in order to find out whether we’re up to the task. One can “acknowledge the reality that Canada felt comfortable under-investing in core competencies”, and so we must, without constantly using that reality to blame Canadians or our leaders past and present for our predicament. Doing so clearly makes some people feel good, but it serves no purpose. Whether we’re prepared to accept the pain will depend on many factors: not simply the amount of pain or even its ostensible justification (defense, sovereignty, infrastructure, independence, stronger federation?) but on how well our political, economic, and intellectual leadership can mobilize support. Engaging in relentless carping, as Jivani and others do, whether for the sake of carping (because blaming someone else is always easier than looking in the mirror), or because they can’t stand to see a Liberal PM succeed (and hence care less about promoting Canada’s success than Carney’s failure), or because they really do sympathize with Trump and his acolytes and would prefer to see us subjugated, is neither useful nor praiseworthy.
Good post. One quibble: Jivani isn't carping, he's conniving. He is not stupid and clearly knows what's at stake. I suspect he would like to parlay his friendship with JD Vance into the job of governor of the state of Canada.
Carping and conniving are (of course) not mutually exclusive: one is a surface-level phenomenon, the other is not.
No nicknames other than “Face Painter”, then? How does that work if “absolultely none are appropriate”? I’m pretty sure I could come up with disparaging nicknames for politicians of every stripe. What’s stopping me? The knowledge that doing so would deeply irritate a lot of people that I would prefer to have a rational conversation with. As for opposing change, that’s in our nature as human beings: we love the prospect of change as long as we’re driving the agenda and pushing things where we think they should go; we loathe when someone with whose vision and ideas we disagree is in charge of the change agenda. Plenty of us who believe deeply in the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the ever-increasing urgency of doing something about it are gritting our teeth at the moment and supporting what Carney is doing because we see that current political urgency precludes working on the bigger picture, which is existential threats on a planetary scale. Guilbeault chose a different direction and resigned from cabinet: that’s his prerogative. Whether or not he accepts that change is imperative, he’s not in the charge of the agenda any longer.
> Whether we’re prepared to accept the pain will depend on many factors:
I think it depends almost entirely in how evenly it is perceived to be spread. If we're all in this together we'll hold together. If we're not...well then.
Agree, but the problem is that perception is reality, and people tend to perceive a preference for their own agendas as even-handed and anything else as unfair. That's where really good leadership is needed, especially because the situation may actually demand unequal treatment. I certainly hope our governments prove to be equal to that task. They have not traditionally been very good at it.
David, you say that one can acknowledge reality of under investing without blaming Canadians or leaders past and present. I somewhat disagree.
I think that telling folks that they must sacrifice and cannot have A or B or C and must pay much more for much less will require honesty and acknowledging that we really screwed up in the past.
Ken, I don't think we disagree fundamentally. Of course we can cast blame, and I realize that for many people that's important for a whole slew of reasons, some perhaps more honourable than others. My point was that we can acknowledge that we were dozing at the switch and that our leadership may well have let us down, but what's past is past. Of course we should be honest with ourselves and not just wave away the past, but at the same time it serves no useful purpose to dwell on it. I have no problem when people criticize our past behaviour and that of our leaders (not only political, as I said), but I do find my patience fraying when that's all people do. I'm more interested in looking forward, and I generally find it more productive. So: learn from the mistakes of the past, by all means; but let's not waste our precious time indulging in blamefests as a substitute for moving forward. How's that sound?
David, you and I almost agree.
I am not looking for blame in the sense of "being right " or some such sentiment. Instead, I am convinced that it is necessary that there is an absolute acknowledgement that:We really screwed the pooch on that decision " or there will be serious resistance to the required corrective policies.
I say that because the Face Painter's acolytes still occupy influential positions within the LPC and are highly likely to oppose required corrective actions.
Thanks for that. I hear you. But one thing I worry about is that the moment we start using insulting nicknames for politicians we don’t like, we’re likely to get people’s backs up right away, which is generally not conducive to getting them to agree that they were wrong. I don’t agree with demonizing opponents because it’s just too easy a shortcut and tends to elide the hard bits, which are much easier to talk about if we depersonalize the discussion. As I said, it’s always easy to blame someone else for what are really collective problems (the other party, the ‘enemy within’, whatever scapegoats we want to choose), but in this life, my experience has been that no one is ever blameless. Every PM you can name has inveterate admirers and relentless detractors, so it’s almost inevitable that name-calling will start soon after the discussion begins, alas. The “we” you mention is also not the “we” of today: even those of us who were alive and participated actively in those events are not the same people (including, I think, those who occupy “influential positions”). Let’s give people a chance to discard their previous views without rancour.
As foar as Europe goes this would be the main fall out from the mystical associate member. I doubt if many Canadians are seeing this.
Sovereignty over key regulations. Aligning with EU standards (as in EEA models) would make Canada a rule-taker on trade, environment, and energy without voting rights, potentially restricting oil/gas development and risking US trade tensions.
Another excellent column, Matt. I am foursquare behind everything you have to say here.
I also have to say that one of the most pleasant surprises, for me anyway, is that I find myself foursquare behind what Stephen Harper has been saying. I never supported his government, but all that is irrelevant now.
He is showing himself to be a true patriot, and he is telling us things that we need to hear (and he has more gravitas and statesman-like-ship in his left pinky than does the current Leader of the Opposition). There are still things he has to say that I disagree with, but all that matters now is his love of country, and I am all over that.
It’s true, I worry too about Canadians’ desire to take on sacrifice. We have arguably been the most privileged of nations by virtue of sharing the continent with the US; and have been insulated from the worst of the many crises that have beset our world these past 100 years. We need to rouse ourselves from our torpor, and as Matt says, this is a big ask.
However, let’s give ourselves a little breathing room. I believe we’re no different than any other country in that we have deep reserves of pride in our country. That’s an essential part of human nature, and we’re no less human than a citizen of any other country.
As Northrop Frye put it, a Canadian is an American who rejects the Revolution. I take that to mean that we share a lot of the same assumptions and aspirations as our American cousins. Given our common origins, it couldn’t be otherwise. But having rejected something that fundamentally defines the American nation, we chose to go our own way and live as a separate people. I believe that has not changed.
For the longest time, all we’ve been called upon to do is to cheer loudly for our national hockey teams and boast about our health-care system (not talking so loudly about that, these days). But the world is a lot meaner now, and we’re going to be asked to dig deeper. We’ve done it before, and given the pride we take in being Canadians, we’ll do it again.
Inevitably there will be the usual nay-sayers to say that Canadians aren’t willing to make any sacrifices and anyway, “we’re not a real country”. Those guys are just the mirror image of all those ostensibly lily-livered Canadians. They’ve never been asked to rise to the challenge, and with their reflexive negativity they're not capable of it.
So long as they insist on falling back on their cynicism, they’re not going to see the opportunity that lies before us “to realize our true potential as a country, which … we have come nowhere close to achieving”. None of what they say is helpful; it’s just tiresome, and they should just stop. Or pull up stakes and move to the US.
Start with what I call the "Gurney" (my label) doctrine. Peace, Order, and Good Government. Via: National Security; Critical Infrastructure; and, Social Development.
Excellent piece. I think Canadians have the resolve to get through this: We supported Chretien and Martin through the really difficult health, education and other social services cuts of the 1990s.
(It's true that the PCs and Reform split the conservative vote, but I'm not so sure the right won't split again if Maple MAGA seizes control; see the BC Conservative Party implosion, the NDP by-election win in Alberta.)
I think the splitting up has already begun. Poillievre is finished. Harper ensured that this week in his speech alongside Mark Carney.
Actually Harper and Pierre are in total agreement.
Yes, I know. But ... optics, etc. I suspect hard core CPC partisans need therapy after seeing him along with Carney.
I suspect you and I could both name several people we were expecting to see claiming Harper was a Liberal shill.
The thing is, I don't know that our working-age population would even really be able to pay much more tax, writ large. The cost of living is such that I now consider the working class to basically be anyone still working (bit sweeping...but is it?) - their mortgage is enormous, food costs so much, and that's only looking likely to get worse with the current energy situation. That cohort just typically does not have a whole lot of money to spare.
You know who does? The constituency that most enthusiastically voted for Carney, the older cohort. That's where an enormous amount of the country's wealth sits, while we also, paradoxically, spend an enormous amount on benefits for them that aren't particularly well targeted to need. OAS alone costs more than $80 billion a year.
That's the cohort I'm most concerned about being willing to sacrifice. I really, really doubt they are. See what happens to a Globe and Mail comment section every time Paul Kershaw has a new article (seriously, do this, as it's rather darkly funny).
I wrote about this, weirdly, kind of before all this kicked off again (https://www.mustardclementine.com/p/we-can-do-better-than-a-downgraded). Conservatives need to get out of the past in the sense that the US is not what it once was, and we shouldn't approach that relationship as though it still is. But the Liberal side, I'm concerned, is also stuck in the past in a different way, in the overly politically self-interested sense. I'm not convinced they're willing to ask their own voters to sacrifice much of anything, or risk losing a single vote in the process, even when doing genuinely important things may require exactly that.
I don't know that you can remake a country for a much harsher era while promising the cohort that accumulated the most during the easier one that absolutely none of the adjustment will fall on them. If we're actually talking about sacrifice, nation-building and doing difficult things, eventually that has to mean more than asking younger working people to pay more for everything.
To imply that Canada has not been a normal country and reiterate for rhetorical effect rubs me the wrong way. I know you're a columnist and your goal is to get a rise. I also don't read Stephen Harpers comments to suggest any kind of agreement with the "you've got to be a State to get the beneifts of a state" nonsense coming from the White House. Canada has been a deeply integrated with the US economy for decades now and is a crucial part of Norad and NATO. We are now slowly beginning to make progress on building our defence capacity. Yes, we may have rode on the back of the US hegemonic military build up to defend continental North America. I think most Canadians understand those days are over. Right now Canadians are feeling a greater sense of unity and national pride than we have felt in decades. Carney is doing everything his packed schedule will allow to build new alliances, to change the permitting, regulatory and tax infrastructure (finally)that has held us back so we can demonstrate that we can get big things done. This is a pivotal moment for Canada. To suggest we can't do it, we're not a normal country and we might not be ready for the pain is an insult to those who are already struggling with higher costs. It underestimates our patriotism, tenacity and determination and seems slightly out of touch with the public mood.
Suggest saving money by rolling back OAS and you’ll see how many are willing to sacrifice.
I think you underestimate the resolve of Canadians of all ages. Time will tell. My view is that OAS should be means tested not universal. But your comment isn't particularly relevant to the column at hand.
I disagree. It absolutely is relevant.
Trade pain = less economic prosperity = less tax revenue = less services or more debt.
Last year, Carney told a room to expect pain. That room wasn’t full of boomers. It was full of students.
My point is this - do Canadians have the temerity and fortitude to do what is necessary to redirect the ship? Only until the boomers start feeling pain. I have faith the biggest voting block will happily sacrifice the interests of their kids and grandkids in support of the cause. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that they’ll sacrifice their own interests.
We can agree to disagree. I wont be drawn into a shit on the boomers tirade except to say the boomers I know have in fact sacrificed more than you appear to understand to protect and further the interests of their kids and grandkids. You paint them as being more selfish than other generations which is frankly, silly. The real issue here is that being a large and influential voting block, all governments will continue to craft policy to retain that vote.
Agreed. It's excellently stated to say "Will entrenched Canadian bureaucratic norms really yield to the pressure from Carney and others to trim environmental assessments and Indigenous consultations down to something efficient enough not to scare away would-be investors."
We're already paying for the rest. Can Ottawa decrease the inherent costs of their bureaucracy and instead spend the money on seriously occupying the north and upgrading to modern times such as getting defensive drones?
Central Canada has the government they continually vote in. That Liberal government is asking them to change. They cannot blame anyone but themselves. Question - will they adjust?
I am not willing to accept pain and sacrifice to extend Mr. Carney’s Trade War, thank you very much.
I have no more left to sacrifice to a Country that left me years ago.
I have no more left to sacrifice so that Mr. Harper and Mr. Carney- and their families- sacrifice nothing.
How long and how hard are Canadians willing to work so that others sacrifice nothing?
Circumstances might dictate otherwise. I hope not, but it's a different world than it was before the pandemic.
Excellent piece.
"... Are we actually prepared, as a country, to pay higher taxes to support a much larger military? ..."
Canada is already a high tax country - as compared to the US, of course, but our taxes are definitely not cheap as compared to a host of other countries either. On the other hand, on the other hand .... many readers will shout, "Scandinavia!" and they would be correct that the Scandinavian countries do have higher tax rates than Canada.
I am not whatsoever an expert on the Scandinavian counties but it seems to me that they are a far more homogeneous countries that offer a whole range of reasons for each of those countries to exist on their own. As I understand matters, they all have noticeable armed forces and they all have - very unlike Canada - the ability to actually DO things.
Matt, you ask just how much pain Canadians are willing to endure. You also note that we continue to exist with NIMBYism, at least in terms of the Toronto island airport. I suggest that you find the answer to your question in the airport "conversation" which was not at all a conversation but an immediate retreat in the face of some locals who just didn't give a damn about the larger picture.
Matt, you further say that you are optimistic about Canada and that "... [t]here isn't any particular reason Canada should not be one of the richest and most powerful counties in the world ..." Well, except, see Toronto island airport, see native "consultation" that has become a veto for the loudest, mouthiest groups, see ......
Put differently, I do not share your optimism.
You note "... most of what we have working against us are things we’ve done to ourselves. We can undo them, but there will be costs for that ..." I just don't see a real acceptance by Canadians to agree to pay those costs. Hell, we can't even keep up the infrastructure that we built generations ago because it would require extra taxes to keep bridges, transmission lines, etc., etc., etc. in good repair.
It is not just the Scandinavian countries that have higher taxes than Canada, if you are going by taxes as share of GDP: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-highlights-brochure.pdf
By that measure Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal have higher taxes than Canada, with the UK being practically even with us. Admittedly, there are few countries that have taxes more than 5% of GDP above Canada, and the countries that have lower taxes than Canada tend to have them much lower.
Add in health insurance and we're not particularly higher tax than the US (it varies a lot by state, unsurprisingly). Indeed, we're lower tax than some states.
I am a retired accountant and I had to discuss relative tax rates from time to time with clients and, periodically, with US accountants.
Your point is certainly a good one but I can tell you that folks typically don't think that logically. When they talk about taxes they talk about taxes and don't think about ancillaries, even really important ancillaries. That is the first point. The second point is that for most folks that work for large employers their health coverage is often paid by the employer and is therefore NOT the direct cost comparison that you reference. And, finally, some folks simply choose to "go naked" at least in a medical coverage sense.
So, yes, kinda, somewhat but not always. I do know that whenever I talked to clients about moving south I certainly brought that point up.
So, to talk about taxes and only taxes, yes, we are a significantly higher tax jurisdiction. When you talk about the important ancillaries then life - as always - becomes more complex.
Thank you for this op-ed, Matt Gurney. I am very pleased that former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke in defence of the current Prime Minister, and bluntly stated what has been obvious to many of us: that the United States is no longer a reliable partner.
It was very important for the most recent Conservative Prime Minister to say this publicly, and in particular a Prime Minister who rose up through the ranks of the Reform Party of Canada and who worked hard to achieve the amalgamation of that party with the Progressive Conservatives.
I will take exception with one element of your analysis, though. After rightly highlighting all that Canadians have not done over the decades, and explaining why that was, you wrote the following:
QUOTE
We’re going to have to grow up, stop relying on others and stand on our own. And that is never fun.
END QUOTE
In my view, there is no need to be so pessimistic about the process of "growing up". Indeed, growing up is often challenging. More often than not, it does involve discomfort and sometimes great pain.
Nevertheless, I've rarely met someone who would rather that they had remained a child, and thus deeply dependent on the directions of others to make their way through life.
The pain of "growing up" is a necessary precursor to the joys of being autonomous (to the extent that anyone is) and of making choices that lead to great achievements and successes.
As such, I would argue that as much as the process of growing up will be a time of great challenge, it should also prove to be a time of great hope, and may even bring us happiness and fulfillment that we could not have otherwise managed to achieve.