Carney won the last elections with a campaign of fear. He had the right audience as Canadians are risk averse and extremely politically apathetic. All of a sudden it didn't matter that the liberals were inept, incompetent and seemingly corrupt, had mismanaged the country's economy for ten years, were completely devoid of any idea or sense of how to turn the ship around, they had found a boogie man with which to exploit the electorate's fears and that became the only thing that mattered. Elbows up and Never 51 became the rallying cries for the politically fearful and uninformed. There will be a price to pay, a very steep price but no matter, Canadians are still walking around with their elbows up and their heads in the sand. Promising Canadians good governance is useless, they only respond to fear mongering and promises of "free stuff".
Canada is a country in steep decline and more bad liberal policies won't fix that but it's ok, we have "free" healthcare! Elbows up baby!
'Elbows up and head in the sand' is a poignant image. If you actually try doing that with your body, it quickly becomes evident that we are in a pickle :)
Maybe “elbow s up” has turned into “tails tucked”. There is no deal on tariffs with Trump and he is now ignoring Carney. No NATO summit invitation is only the beginning.
Maybe for some. For me, Pierre is a spin-doctored BS artist with no redeeming features. If the Liberals used fear, why was Pierre not able to counter it with his agenda? But he, who had been begging for an election, couldn't even get a costed platform out before the advanced polls closed. All parties use some form of fear. Leaders can counter it. Pierre has arrogance and attitude, but no substance. He won't win in 2029 either, but the CPC doesn't seem willing to learn from its mistakes.
I think that PP was characterized in a toxic way by the LPC loving media well before he became leader. Oh, he wasn't a prize in all ways on all days but the media had decided that anything that opposed the LPC agenda was "evil" and "Trump-like" even if it wasn't so. A way to confirm this is that MC has adopted a big chunk of the CPC platform and claimed it as his own.
But, I expect that when a person has a narrative, they (that would be you) aren't that terribly interested in changing.
That's not how I came to my opinion of him. Media comments played no part. His speeches, his interviews, and his behaviour in the House did. So did the lack of a platform, although I disliked him strongly before the election. The LPC had no agenda as long as Trudeau was running it. If he'd stayed, I would have voted for Pierre to get rid of him. I think it says even more about PP that he had no answer for Carney taking parts of his platform and neutering others.
I was the vote Pierre had to convince me to cast. It wasn't close.
The country is desperate for change from the Trudeau years. I think they picked the right statesman. A very good day to you, too.
Agree with you on the last two. In some cases you have none too bright leaders who surround themselves with smart advisors and listen to them (eg Ronald Reagan). In other cases you have morons who surround themselves with other morons aka advisers/sycophants because the leader won’t listen or is insecure. PP is a good example of the latter. Wasting half the campaign or more campaigning against Trudeau and the Carbon tax after they were gone was a terrific way to lose.
“Free” health care indeed. Paid by taxes and wait list deaths.
Risk averse yes. With 200 years of Catholic Church oppression on the French side and United Empire Loyalist anti-American revolution cowardice on the English side, this is quite understandable. As Machiavelli said and Canada’s rulers know, “Fear is stronger than love”.
In four months all Carney has done is announce spending. As a former banker he should know there is another side to the ledger and that is income. He has made no changes to increase GDP. It is all promises and no action.
He’s been Prime Minister for six months. His government is presently reviewing spending.
Canada’s economic circumstances are largely beyond his government’s control (we live in a market economy, where businesses, investors and consumers make decisions based on things like supply and demand, prices and their understanding of meta trends, particularly in the United States.
To expect him to wave a magic wand and make things better right away is neither fair nor reasonable.
Actually, it is almost the same government, with the same Ministers and the same advisor in the PMO. External environment alright. Parliament sat for two weeks since January. Now the PM is making decisions and promises of billions in spending with no budget and no Parliamentary scrutiny. Canadians have been patient for 10 long painful years and you ask for more? Really?
It’s almost the same team of Liberals but with a new “leader” that have cratered Canada’s economy with their woke, globalist, net zero imbecilic policies over the lost ten years. With parliament on permanent reduced working days, and a bought and paid for Canadian media regurgitating Liberal (anti-Conservative) talking points to the “elbows up” crowd - Mark Carney is looking more and more like Canada’s last prime minister.
They could have easily made the decision to get out of the way in the first week after the elections: cut taxes, slash spending, deregulate (dairy cartel, internet, cell phones, airlines, anyone?) and I bet we would already see a big change by now.
The housing file alone is a hot potato that no ones wants to touch. They could easily strongarm the provinces and municipality into taking real action. All we have is hot air.
I would rather see the government identify entire programs that need to be eliminated to make way for new spending (and to reduce the size of the deficit).
This approach, which did prevail during the Chretien-Martin era in the mid-1990s, would almost certainly be superior to the "bleed it across the board" approach adopted by the Harper government in the early 2010s.
The point being that one reduces unnecessary bulk AND ensures that it has a fair chance of ensuring that programs remaining are managed more effectively.
What we did in the 2010s ended up reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of federal government initiatives across the board.
I don't even disagree with you, but as ken noted below, how much is a reasonable time frame to accomplish a review and make decisions?
Where we might disagree is how much can be cut. I think the government should focus on its regalian functions in the strictest sense of the term.
There is so much crap and other boondoggles that could be cut out there that it's depressing to think about. Way too many grifters are making money at the government teat and charging a pretty penny for it: DEI consultants, IRS mass-grave ambulance chasers, safe supply industry, etc.
All of that could be cut tomorrow and no one (except the grifters) would notice. We would have more money in our pockets for actual growth.
We increased civil service by 43% between 2015 and 2024. The population didn't increase that much and with the potential increase in productivity gains due to technological advances, we could probably to twice the amount of work with half the people.
There is a lot of fat that can be cut before we even come close to the bone.
AC, you write, in part "I would rather see the government identify entire programs that need to be eliminated to make way for new spending (and to reduce the size of the deficit) ..."
Truly, I also would like to see that very thing. You are optimistic that this will be done whereas I am not simply pessimistic but would be incredibly astonished if such a thing was ultimately produced. So, we have the same desired end result but a different perspective on the likelihood of that result.
My question of you is what time frame do you reasonably expect such a "review" to take. Allow me to put it differently: by what date would you expect an announcement of a specific plan of specific cuts to be released? And, yet again differently, MC has literally been in charge since March 14, 2025; so if he didn't produce such a plan by, oh, September 30 has he failed your test? If not then, by December 31? And so forth.
Spending cuts are never popular. Best to start on the austerity as soon as possible and over correct. Canada needs to cut ~$150B in spending: $90B to balance the budget, $20B to account for increased debt servicing and possibly repay some debt, $20B in tax cuts, $20B reallocated to military. The low hanging fruit for cuts are reducing the federal workforce by 100K, walking away from childcare, dentalcare and pharmacare before they become expected services and means testing the child tax benefit and OAS. Nobody earning over the median income should receive the child tax benefit or OAS.
I keep reading columns on here and elsewhere that continue to give Carney the benefit of the doubt and say "good job buddy" as one would say to a child who gave his best at the local foot race, but didn't make the podium.
This is oh so very Canadian, where a mediocre performer is continuously given the benefit of the doubt.
In times like these, we should be plowing through our biggest challenges and breaking shit in the process, no dilly-dallying and say all the right things that make people feel good inside but achieve nothing.
Where is our maple DOGE? Where is our Milei with his own chainsaw?
If Milei was able start turning the fortunes of Argentina in under two years, Carney has no excuse to not put Canada on the path to being the richest country on earth.
Alas, I haven't seen anything that remotely looks like the hardcore reforms we need. It's all been very milquetoast.
You should check out Linked In - every post by PM Mark Carney about a meeting or photo-op gets 100s of “Congrats Mark 🎉 “Either Canadians are a majority of imbeciles or the Liberal machine have harnessed AI to their benefit, and I would add Canada’s demise.
We are giving Carney the benefit of the doubt because many hope to hell he can deliver on a turnaround of the country. Because if he can’t we are hooped and that scenario is a dreadful one to contemplate.
Electorally, the evasive rebranding strategy that didn't work for Kamala Harris in the USA worked adequately enough for Carney to keep the federal Liberals in power here. Consequently, it's now impossible to speak of Canada heading in any particular “direction,” because we don't yet know what this Prime Minister's ultimate intentions are. Is he still a Davos-style globalist, perhaps? Who knows? If he is, he's evidently decided disguising the fact is his most prudent course for the time being.
The trust—or perhaps desperate hope—Canadian voters have reposed in Carney is somewhat astonishing, given that predecessor Trudeau's evasion and irresponsibility were among the things Canadians most detested about him. YouTube videos of Trudeau's bobbing and weaving in the House of Commons, and his contemptuous refusal to directly answer questions, finally drove Canadians wild and Liberal Party popularity numbers into the ground.
If Jagmeet Singh hadn't succeeded in preventing the country from voting until after Trudeau's departure, Pierre Poilievre would almost certainly now be Canada's PM. Whether or not you think that state of affairs preferable, at least the country would have had a discernible direction. One thing Poilievre definitely isn't is evasive: we always know precisely where he stands on every issue.
The government should have been brought down last fall with no leadership race by Liberals. I try to think why Jagmeet didn’t do that and unfortunately always end up at the fact he and many of his MPs needed more time to pass before their pensions were secured. I’d welcome other theories but I think his caucus would not have supported him on a vote to bring down the Liberals because they wanted their pensions.
Don't discount cult-like attachment to a narrative in which Poilievre appears as the Canadian incarnation of Trump. NDPers have often been described as “liberals in a hurry;” they can easily reconcile themselves to working with the Liberal Party. They would recoil in horror at any suggestion they could form an alliance with conservatives. For them, even the thought of a Conservative Party electoral victory is an affront to all that's right and holy, an existential catastrophe that threatens the very fabric of their identity.
That's the nonnegotiable nature of ideological commitment. It doesn't matter what Poilievre does or says: all they can see and hear is the caricature that legacy media narratives have substituted for the real person. Neither reason nor evidence can pierce a prejudice... and Canada's principal legacy media outlets—CBC, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star—are nothing if not prejudiced.
It is clear to me, as an Albertan, that any bad Liberal from the Laurentain Elite is repeatedly preferable to Ontario & Quebec than the percieved evils the Conservatives could/would/may rain down upon them. Full marks to the Liberal Party & significant parts of the media for convincing people that Mr Poilievre is a NOT A NICE guy (a Trump lover & clone) and that the smooth, solid, reliable Mr Carney with all that worldly experience is obviously the right man for these times.
Yes the clock is ticking, how are those "Elbows Up' fighting words working for us sofar, lets check back by the new year and grade the promises (a Lib strong suit) against actual action.
But in AB we have realized for years results aren't needed to win federal elections - just pull out the long list of promises Ont/Quebec think they want, bad mouth the Conservatives and who ever the leader is at the time and last threaten any vote for th NDP is really a vote for the Conservatives.
I do not want to become the 51 state, I do not want to be a seperate country, currently Alberta will not vote to seperate BUT I lke many are not content with the current situation and something must and will happen one way or another.
As you say, CURRENTLY we in Alberta will not vote to separate. But, if the LPC led government keeps fouling up, one cannot say that interminably.
I say that, particularly, as I await the grand promise of a "list" of projects that I expect will be one of a) not really a major list of anything credible; b) no list at all - i.e. the subject will be forgotten; c) a list of easily achievable items that - gasp! - aren't actually achieved within oh, say, five years; and/or d) ignore any potential items that are not unanimously supported by applicable premiers and/or native groups.
So, as I say, CURRENTLY we will not vote to separate but, once we see a list and where "our" preferences rank on such a list ..... who can say at that point?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. When I comment I do try to be a bit reserved in my reply & not let my emotions take over. I agree wholeheartly with all your comments.
This would be my game plan since I believe a seperation vote now is not a winner:
-AB & Sask become one province, show Manitoba that joining in is better than Lib gov't handouts ( resource links to Hudson Bay), win over BC as the vast majority of the province is more like AB than the progressives on the Island and Van/Fraser Valley.
-Work towards a broader representation -the West, Ontario,Quebec & the Maritimes with everything being equal.
I suggest (a polite way of throwing out an idea for discussion) that yes, AB and SK could become one entity - in a new independent entity, if that was the way that was chosen. However, if they remained in Canada I cannot see that there would be any merit in such a combination unless other provinces (the Maritimes) also undertook consolidation. Given that the latter would not happen, I don't see such a combination as being reasonable within a Canadian context.
I further suggest (see? trying to be polite) that the inclusion of Manitoba in the AB - SK mix might well not be useful, even given the HB possibility. Simply put, it seems to me that the political culture of Manitoba is very different than either AB or SK.
Oh, and "broader representation?" Please see my first sentence. And then remember that unreasonable dreams become nightmares. Why nightmares? Well, O & Q control matters and will not allow such equality in Canada. Simple: they would lose power that they have had since 1867 and they won't allow that.
To be honest I’d kind of forgotten how awful Justin was an now when I see some of his last pronouncements or interactions I’m shocked at what an unserious buffoon he was and by the level of repugnance that wells up inside me towards him. Carney not being Justin is an amazing advantage.
Not sure that I’d agree with that comment as unfortunately too many of the voters in Quebec and Ontario have for some reason bought into the myth that Liberala are good and Conservatives are bad and will take “entitlements” away.
That's not why I voted for Carney. Trudeau had to go. Pierre may have had a ton of good ideas, but for me, they were a steak dinner served on a garbage can lid. My choice was entirely about my lack of trust in Pierre based on the previous 4 years. Conservatives will continue to lose until they completely cast aside any elements of social conservatism, and frankly, get rid of Pierre, who is unelectable. He's still completely out of touch with reality and still thinks his job is to disagree with anything the government says.
So you are you saying that social conservatism has no place in this country? The role of the opposition IS to disagree with and challenge the government of the day. Apparently some of those challenges and points of disagreement must have validity or why else would Carney have stolen them and used them in his campaign.
Every single idea a Liberal has or a Conservative has is not wrong. Parliament is there to serve the best interests of the voters and the country as a whole. Pierre had some great ideas. Good on Carney for seeing that. If Pierre had delivered them better, like Erin would have, he'd be PM. But Pierre can't stop being the "attack-dog". That's not leaderlike, and he'll never win with it.
Social Conservatism, like religion, has no place in the government of any country. 1950 is never coming back. IMHO, social conservatism is just another name for misogyny. Society has some basic laws we all follow. I don't need the government telling me what my morality is, nor how I must live my life.
But it’s okay for the government to tell you how not to think? Sorry but that ship has sailed - government is continually telling you how to think or not think and it has nothing to do with idea of social conservatism. As to the attack dog mentality a large part of it is born of frustration with a government that will not answer questions clearly and fails the accountability test in many instances.
I understand why Canadians have given Carney a boost; we just aren't able yet to differentiate our beliefs from reality so we rely on this kind of self-congratulatory vibe. The truth, however, is a harsh mistress; Carney/Canada wasn't even invited to the grown-up's table in Washington about Ukraine because we are now internationally irrelevant compared to Canada's role recognizing Ukraine and pouring billions into aid. Great job! How's that for a direction? The chattering classes scream and moan about Trump tariffs rising from 25-25% on specific materials while they stay pretty quiet and complacent in comparison about China slapping a 78.8% tariff (ya gotta LOVE the point eight) on canola and causing so much targeted harm against western farmers. But since when did western concerns of any kind drive much if any corrective policy in Ottawa? So the direction remains the same: Canadians love feeling good about themselves and how satisfyingly sharp these elbows are so they share that vibe with Carney as their Dear Leader in spite of reality dictating just how self delusional this ongoing trait is.
Western concerns have never been a priority for Ottawa, unless it involved Ottawa wanting to exploit, short of actual thieving, a resource a western province has.
Alberta knows that very well; the Trudeau -LaLonde National Energy Policy of the early 80s. Sell Alberta oil to eastern Canada at a much lower price than the world price! Unbelievable arrogance and utter disregard for a western province.
The very bad economic depression that swiftly followed the hated imposition of the NEP caused hardship for so many businesses and people.
It took years for Alberta to recover. I know, my family lived in Alberta.
Folks - including you - start with talking about the NEP but the truth is that the Liberals started attacking our energy in the 1970s (1974 is my recollection) when T1 changed the Income Tax Act to deny the deduction of crown royalties in the deduction of the calculation of taxable income.
That change was because "Alberta was becoming too wealthy" according to the government of the day. The result was that a lot of wells were shut in because the net effect was to make them non-economic when taxes were taken into account and it increased the income tax take by the federal government. The resource producing provinces were forced into granting large, large, large royalty tax credit schemes that beggared them - all to the grins of Otterwer.
I live in Alberta. I lived through the 70s, 80s and since.
I believe (G&M) China imposed tariffs on canola in retaliation to Mr. Carney's tariffs (?100%) on Chinese EVs. This is the failing of Confederation in a nutshell. Regional interests are mutually exclusive and regional differences cannot be reconciled. Ironically, the G&M said this should not divide us.
My federalist friends provide the usual tripe, presumably lifted form the LPC's Weekly Manifesto on What to Think, with no substantive argument for Why Canada?
Markie Carnie's elbow up elbows down chichenshit dance performed with a smirk for the subjects in his socioeconomic experiment. GodEmperor of Laurentian massive grift and equally massive conflicts of interest. Trudeau's long-time economic advisor and policy whisperer. Too many still giving him the "benefit of doubt", still expecting a change to the better from - The Idiot King's long-time economic advisor and policy whisperer. Gggaaawwwdddd....
The clock is ticking faster on simply accepting words from Carney. It is time for actions to be announced. The challenges for his government are massive. Economic hope and optimism of our youth is around zero. Worse, decisions need to be made, with rapid following actions; something we have all but abandoned. I don't envy him what is ahead, but I'm glad it's him and not the alternative.
Carney must chart a course between what is good for Canada and what will placate the Left within the Liberal Party of Canada and their base in central Canada. So far Carney has been mostly talk on rebuilding the Canadian economy and seems reluctant to actually put a shovel in the ground.
What a waste of space. This author didn’t answer his own question. Perhaps he should read Gary Clement’s latest offering in Adam Cooper’s “ The Bureau” and ask himself to ask that question again before we get a rehash of Liberal failures.
Carney won the last elections with a campaign of fear. He had the right audience as Canadians are risk averse and extremely politically apathetic. All of a sudden it didn't matter that the liberals were inept, incompetent and seemingly corrupt, had mismanaged the country's economy for ten years, were completely devoid of any idea or sense of how to turn the ship around, they had found a boogie man with which to exploit the electorate's fears and that became the only thing that mattered. Elbows up and Never 51 became the rallying cries for the politically fearful and uninformed. There will be a price to pay, a very steep price but no matter, Canadians are still walking around with their elbows up and their heads in the sand. Promising Canadians good governance is useless, they only respond to fear mongering and promises of "free stuff".
Canada is a country in steep decline and more bad liberal policies won't fix that but it's ok, we have "free" healthcare! Elbows up baby!
'Elbows up and head in the sand' is a poignant image. If you actually try doing that with your body, it quickly becomes evident that we are in a pickle :)
"Elbows up, ret*rds"
Maybe “elbow s up” has turned into “tails tucked”. There is no deal on tariffs with Trump and he is now ignoring Carney. No NATO summit invitation is only the beginning.
Canada sure is in a big pickle!
Carney won because of what Pierre is. Like the previous 2 elections, that is the fault of the CPC entirely.
Carney won because of the fear mongering strategy of the Liberal Party- the big bad wolf is coming to blow your house down.
Maybe for some. For me, Pierre is a spin-doctored BS artist with no redeeming features. If the Liberals used fear, why was Pierre not able to counter it with his agenda? But he, who had been begging for an election, couldn't even get a costed platform out before the advanced polls closed. All parties use some form of fear. Leaders can counter it. Pierre has arrogance and attitude, but no substance. He won't win in 2029 either, but the CPC doesn't seem willing to learn from its mistakes.
David, I respectfully disagree.
I think that PP was characterized in a toxic way by the LPC loving media well before he became leader. Oh, he wasn't a prize in all ways on all days but the media had decided that anything that opposed the LPC agenda was "evil" and "Trump-like" even if it wasn't so. A way to confirm this is that MC has adopted a big chunk of the CPC platform and claimed it as his own.
But, I expect that when a person has a narrative, they (that would be you) aren't that terribly interested in changing.
Have a good day, Sir.
That's not how I came to my opinion of him. Media comments played no part. His speeches, his interviews, and his behaviour in the House did. So did the lack of a platform, although I disliked him strongly before the election. The LPC had no agenda as long as Trudeau was running it. If he'd stayed, I would have voted for Pierre to get rid of him. I think it says even more about PP that he had no answer for Carney taking parts of his platform and neutering others.
I was the vote Pierre had to convince me to cast. It wasn't close.
The country is desperate for change from the Trudeau years. I think they picked the right statesman. A very good day to you, too.
I like Pierre. And I am so glad he's going to be back in the House. I agree with the rest of your post too 😉
The CPC continues to be unable to seal the deal, even when we had the most unpopular PM and government in a generation. Look inward, CPC. Look inward.
They found a way to lose three elections in a row served to them on a silver platter.
Agree with you on the last two. In some cases you have none too bright leaders who surround themselves with smart advisors and listen to them (eg Ronald Reagan). In other cases you have morons who surround themselves with other morons aka advisers/sycophants because the leader won’t listen or is insecure. PP is a good example of the latter. Wasting half the campaign or more campaigning against Trudeau and the Carbon tax after they were gone was a terrific way to lose.
Absolute 100% self-own.
“Free” health care indeed. Paid by taxes and wait list deaths.
Risk averse yes. With 200 years of Catholic Church oppression on the French side and United Empire Loyalist anti-American revolution cowardice on the English side, this is quite understandable. As Machiavelli said and Canada’s rulers know, “Fear is stronger than love”.
In four months all Carney has done is announce spending. As a former banker he should know there is another side to the ledger and that is income. He has made no changes to increase GDP. It is all promises and no action.
He has taken the "announce-it-and-forget-it" page out of Trudeau's book.
He’s been Prime Minister for six months. His government is presently reviewing spending.
Canada’s economic circumstances are largely beyond his government’s control (we live in a market economy, where businesses, investors and consumers make decisions based on things like supply and demand, prices and their understanding of meta trends, particularly in the United States.
To expect him to wave a magic wand and make things better right away is neither fair nor reasonable.
“ Reviewing spending “ ? They had 10 years to do that and drove the country into billions of debt.
Sigh. This is a new government, for all intents and purposes. It is hardly fair to think otherwise.
As such, the Carney-led government is just getting started (and is operating in a remarkably novel external environment).
Be patient.
Actually, it is almost the same government, with the same Ministers and the same advisor in the PMO. External environment alright. Parliament sat for two weeks since January. Now the PM is making decisions and promises of billions in spending with no budget and no Parliamentary scrutiny. Canadians have been patient for 10 long painful years and you ask for more? Really?
It’s almost the same team of Liberals but with a new “leader” that have cratered Canada’s economy with their woke, globalist, net zero imbecilic policies over the lost ten years. With parliament on permanent reduced working days, and a bought and paid for Canadian media regurgitating Liberal (anti-Conservative) talking points to the “elbows up” crowd - Mark Carney is looking more and more like Canada’s last prime minister.
Let's hope.
They could have easily made the decision to get out of the way in the first week after the elections: cut taxes, slash spending, deregulate (dairy cartel, internet, cell phones, airlines, anyone?) and I bet we would already see a big change by now.
The housing file alone is a hot potato that no ones wants to touch. They could easily strongarm the provinces and municipality into taking real action. All we have is hot air.
No. A spending review and major revision of the tax code cannot be done at the drop of a hat.
It's a failure of imagination to think that because things have always been done a certain way, we have to keep doing them the same way.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. And the urgency of our situation would call for extraordinary measures.
Anything short of that is grossly inadequate.
I would rather see the government identify entire programs that need to be eliminated to make way for new spending (and to reduce the size of the deficit).
This approach, which did prevail during the Chretien-Martin era in the mid-1990s, would almost certainly be superior to the "bleed it across the board" approach adopted by the Harper government in the early 2010s.
The point being that one reduces unnecessary bulk AND ensures that it has a fair chance of ensuring that programs remaining are managed more effectively.
What we did in the 2010s ended up reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of federal government initiatives across the board.
I don't even disagree with you, but as ken noted below, how much is a reasonable time frame to accomplish a review and make decisions?
Where we might disagree is how much can be cut. I think the government should focus on its regalian functions in the strictest sense of the term.
There is so much crap and other boondoggles that could be cut out there that it's depressing to think about. Way too many grifters are making money at the government teat and charging a pretty penny for it: DEI consultants, IRS mass-grave ambulance chasers, safe supply industry, etc.
All of that could be cut tomorrow and no one (except the grifters) would notice. We would have more money in our pockets for actual growth.
We increased civil service by 43% between 2015 and 2024. The population didn't increase that much and with the potential increase in productivity gains due to technological advances, we could probably to twice the amount of work with half the people.
There is a lot of fat that can be cut before we even come close to the bone.
The morbidly obese patient needs a diet stat.
AC, you write, in part "I would rather see the government identify entire programs that need to be eliminated to make way for new spending (and to reduce the size of the deficit) ..."
Truly, I also would like to see that very thing. You are optimistic that this will be done whereas I am not simply pessimistic but would be incredibly astonished if such a thing was ultimately produced. So, we have the same desired end result but a different perspective on the likelihood of that result.
My question of you is what time frame do you reasonably expect such a "review" to take. Allow me to put it differently: by what date would you expect an announcement of a specific plan of specific cuts to be released? And, yet again differently, MC has literally been in charge since March 14, 2025; so if he didn't produce such a plan by, oh, September 30 has he failed your test? If not then, by December 31? And so forth.
Spending cuts are never popular. Best to start on the austerity as soon as possible and over correct. Canada needs to cut ~$150B in spending: $90B to balance the budget, $20B to account for increased debt servicing and possibly repay some debt, $20B in tax cuts, $20B reallocated to military. The low hanging fruit for cuts are reducing the federal workforce by 100K, walking away from childcare, dentalcare and pharmacare before they become expected services and means testing the child tax benefit and OAS. Nobody earning over the median income should receive the child tax benefit or OAS.
Quite right. No magic wand, the LPC will just go to the money tree.
I keep reading columns on here and elsewhere that continue to give Carney the benefit of the doubt and say "good job buddy" as one would say to a child who gave his best at the local foot race, but didn't make the podium.
This is oh so very Canadian, where a mediocre performer is continuously given the benefit of the doubt.
In times like these, we should be plowing through our biggest challenges and breaking shit in the process, no dilly-dallying and say all the right things that make people feel good inside but achieve nothing.
Where is our maple DOGE? Where is our Milei with his own chainsaw?
If Milei was able start turning the fortunes of Argentina in under two years, Carney has no excuse to not put Canada on the path to being the richest country on earth.
Alas, I haven't seen anything that remotely looks like the hardcore reforms we need. It's all been very milquetoast.
You should check out Linked In - every post by PM Mark Carney about a meeting or photo-op gets 100s of “Congrats Mark 🎉 “Either Canadians are a majority of imbeciles or the Liberal machine have harnessed AI to their benefit, and I would add Canada’s demise.
We are giving Carney the benefit of the doubt because many hope to hell he can deliver on a turnaround of the country. Because if he can’t we are hooped and that scenario is a dreadful one to contemplate.
OK, got it. So you'd prefer to keep your head in the sand that calling him out for what he is?
Electorally, the evasive rebranding strategy that didn't work for Kamala Harris in the USA worked adequately enough for Carney to keep the federal Liberals in power here. Consequently, it's now impossible to speak of Canada heading in any particular “direction,” because we don't yet know what this Prime Minister's ultimate intentions are. Is he still a Davos-style globalist, perhaps? Who knows? If he is, he's evidently decided disguising the fact is his most prudent course for the time being.
The trust—or perhaps desperate hope—Canadian voters have reposed in Carney is somewhat astonishing, given that predecessor Trudeau's evasion and irresponsibility were among the things Canadians most detested about him. YouTube videos of Trudeau's bobbing and weaving in the House of Commons, and his contemptuous refusal to directly answer questions, finally drove Canadians wild and Liberal Party popularity numbers into the ground.
If Jagmeet Singh hadn't succeeded in preventing the country from voting until after Trudeau's departure, Pierre Poilievre would almost certainly now be Canada's PM. Whether or not you think that state of affairs preferable, at least the country would have had a discernible direction. One thing Poilievre definitely isn't is evasive: we always know precisely where he stands on every issue.
The government should have been brought down last fall with no leadership race by Liberals. I try to think why Jagmeet didn’t do that and unfortunately always end up at the fact he and many of his MPs needed more time to pass before their pensions were secured. I’d welcome other theories but I think his caucus would not have supported him on a vote to bring down the Liberals because they wanted their pensions.
Don't discount cult-like attachment to a narrative in which Poilievre appears as the Canadian incarnation of Trump. NDPers have often been described as “liberals in a hurry;” they can easily reconcile themselves to working with the Liberal Party. They would recoil in horror at any suggestion they could form an alliance with conservatives. For them, even the thought of a Conservative Party electoral victory is an affront to all that's right and holy, an existential catastrophe that threatens the very fabric of their identity.
That's the nonnegotiable nature of ideological commitment. It doesn't matter what Poilievre does or says: all they can see and hear is the caricature that legacy media narratives have substituted for the real person. Neither reason nor evidence can pierce a prejudice... and Canada's principal legacy media outlets—CBC, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star—are nothing if not prejudiced.
It is clear to me, as an Albertan, that any bad Liberal from the Laurentain Elite is repeatedly preferable to Ontario & Quebec than the percieved evils the Conservatives could/would/may rain down upon them. Full marks to the Liberal Party & significant parts of the media for convincing people that Mr Poilievre is a NOT A NICE guy (a Trump lover & clone) and that the smooth, solid, reliable Mr Carney with all that worldly experience is obviously the right man for these times.
Yes the clock is ticking, how are those "Elbows Up' fighting words working for us sofar, lets check back by the new year and grade the promises (a Lib strong suit) against actual action.
But in AB we have realized for years results aren't needed to win federal elections - just pull out the long list of promises Ont/Quebec think they want, bad mouth the Conservatives and who ever the leader is at the time and last threaten any vote for th NDP is really a vote for the Conservatives.
I do not want to become the 51 state, I do not want to be a seperate country, currently Alberta will not vote to seperate BUT I lke many are not content with the current situation and something must and will happen one way or another.
As you say, CURRENTLY we in Alberta will not vote to separate. But, if the LPC led government keeps fouling up, one cannot say that interminably.
I say that, particularly, as I await the grand promise of a "list" of projects that I expect will be one of a) not really a major list of anything credible; b) no list at all - i.e. the subject will be forgotten; c) a list of easily achievable items that - gasp! - aren't actually achieved within oh, say, five years; and/or d) ignore any potential items that are not unanimously supported by applicable premiers and/or native groups.
So, as I say, CURRENTLY we will not vote to separate but, once we see a list and where "our" preferences rank on such a list ..... who can say at that point?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. When I comment I do try to be a bit reserved in my reply & not let my emotions take over. I agree wholeheartly with all your comments.
This would be my game plan since I believe a seperation vote now is not a winner:
-AB & Sask become one province, show Manitoba that joining in is better than Lib gov't handouts ( resource links to Hudson Bay), win over BC as the vast majority of the province is more like AB than the progressives on the Island and Van/Fraser Valley.
-Work towards a broader representation -the West, Ontario,Quebec & the Maritimes with everything being equal.
A man can dream.
Don, yes, a man can dream. However ...
I suggest (a polite way of throwing out an idea for discussion) that yes, AB and SK could become one entity - in a new independent entity, if that was the way that was chosen. However, if they remained in Canada I cannot see that there would be any merit in such a combination unless other provinces (the Maritimes) also undertook consolidation. Given that the latter would not happen, I don't see such a combination as being reasonable within a Canadian context.
I further suggest (see? trying to be polite) that the inclusion of Manitoba in the AB - SK mix might well not be useful, even given the HB possibility. Simply put, it seems to me that the political culture of Manitoba is very different than either AB or SK.
Oh, and "broader representation?" Please see my first sentence. And then remember that unreasonable dreams become nightmares. Why nightmares? Well, O & Q control matters and will not allow such equality in Canada. Simple: they would lose power that they have had since 1867 and they won't allow that.
Trudeaus reign was so bad and it set the bar so low that it’s very easy for Carney to achieve the faint praise of a “so far so good” comment.
That should have been the thesis of this column.
A mediocre prime minister with bad ideas that looks stellar in comparison to his even worse predecessor.
Indeed. Let's see how Carney compares to someone competent.
Who? The field is littered with narcissistic idiots who failed upwards.
So you are saying that that Trudeau is the most competent ex-prime minister we've got?
Lol, why yes, of course!
To be honest I’d kind of forgotten how awful Justin was an now when I see some of his last pronouncements or interactions I’m shocked at what an unserious buffoon he was and by the level of repugnance that wells up inside me towards him. Carney not being Justin is an amazing advantage.
It was obvious Trudeau was a disaster with SNC. There is only one reason he stayed in power: the CPC offered nothing better.
Not sure that I’d agree with that comment as unfortunately too many of the voters in Quebec and Ontario have for some reason bought into the myth that Liberala are good and Conservatives are bad and will take “entitlements” away.
That's not why I voted for Carney. Trudeau had to go. Pierre may have had a ton of good ideas, but for me, they were a steak dinner served on a garbage can lid. My choice was entirely about my lack of trust in Pierre based on the previous 4 years. Conservatives will continue to lose until they completely cast aside any elements of social conservatism, and frankly, get rid of Pierre, who is unelectable. He's still completely out of touch with reality and still thinks his job is to disagree with anything the government says.
So you are you saying that social conservatism has no place in this country? The role of the opposition IS to disagree with and challenge the government of the day. Apparently some of those challenges and points of disagreement must have validity or why else would Carney have stolen them and used them in his campaign.
Every single idea a Liberal has or a Conservative has is not wrong. Parliament is there to serve the best interests of the voters and the country as a whole. Pierre had some great ideas. Good on Carney for seeing that. If Pierre had delivered them better, like Erin would have, he'd be PM. But Pierre can't stop being the "attack-dog". That's not leaderlike, and he'll never win with it.
Social Conservatism, like religion, has no place in the government of any country. 1950 is never coming back. IMHO, social conservatism is just another name for misogyny. Society has some basic laws we all follow. I don't need the government telling me what my morality is, nor how I must live my life.
But it’s okay for the government to tell you how not to think? Sorry but that ship has sailed - government is continually telling you how to think or not think and it has nothing to do with idea of social conservatism. As to the attack dog mentality a large part of it is born of frustration with a government that will not answer questions clearly and fails the accountability test in many instances.
I understand why Canadians have given Carney a boost; we just aren't able yet to differentiate our beliefs from reality so we rely on this kind of self-congratulatory vibe. The truth, however, is a harsh mistress; Carney/Canada wasn't even invited to the grown-up's table in Washington about Ukraine because we are now internationally irrelevant compared to Canada's role recognizing Ukraine and pouring billions into aid. Great job! How's that for a direction? The chattering classes scream and moan about Trump tariffs rising from 25-25% on specific materials while they stay pretty quiet and complacent in comparison about China slapping a 78.8% tariff (ya gotta LOVE the point eight) on canola and causing so much targeted harm against western farmers. But since when did western concerns of any kind drive much if any corrective policy in Ottawa? So the direction remains the same: Canadians love feeling good about themselves and how satisfyingly sharp these elbows are so they share that vibe with Carney as their Dear Leader in spite of reality dictating just how self delusional this ongoing trait is.
Western concerns have never been a priority for Ottawa, unless it involved Ottawa wanting to exploit, short of actual thieving, a resource a western province has.
Alberta knows that very well; the Trudeau -LaLonde National Energy Policy of the early 80s. Sell Alberta oil to eastern Canada at a much lower price than the world price! Unbelievable arrogance and utter disregard for a western province.
The very bad economic depression that swiftly followed the hated imposition of the NEP caused hardship for so many businesses and people.
It took years for Alberta to recover. I know, my family lived in Alberta.
I watched the rigs head south.
Yvonne, they NEVER stopped short of thieving.
Folks - including you - start with talking about the NEP but the truth is that the Liberals started attacking our energy in the 1970s (1974 is my recollection) when T1 changed the Income Tax Act to deny the deduction of crown royalties in the deduction of the calculation of taxable income.
That change was because "Alberta was becoming too wealthy" according to the government of the day. The result was that a lot of wells were shut in because the net effect was to make them non-economic when taxes were taken into account and it increased the income tax take by the federal government. The resource producing provinces were forced into granting large, large, large royalty tax credit schemes that beggared them - all to the grins of Otterwer.
I live in Alberta. I lived through the 70s, 80s and since.
Holy Crow, I never knew this.
I believe (G&M) China imposed tariffs on canola in retaliation to Mr. Carney's tariffs (?100%) on Chinese EVs. This is the failing of Confederation in a nutshell. Regional interests are mutually exclusive and regional differences cannot be reconciled. Ironically, the G&M said this should not divide us.
My federalist friends provide the usual tripe, presumably lifted form the LPC's Weekly Manifesto on What to Think, with no substantive argument for Why Canada?
Markie Carnie's elbow up elbows down chichenshit dance performed with a smirk for the subjects in his socioeconomic experiment. GodEmperor of Laurentian massive grift and equally massive conflicts of interest. Trudeau's long-time economic advisor and policy whisperer. Too many still giving him the "benefit of doubt", still expecting a change to the better from - The Idiot King's long-time economic advisor and policy whisperer. Gggaaawwwdddd....
Except Carney hasn't done anything yet....
And is highly unlikely to do so.
The clock is ticking faster on simply accepting words from Carney. It is time for actions to be announced. The challenges for his government are massive. Economic hope and optimism of our youth is around zero. Worse, decisions need to be made, with rapid following actions; something we have all but abandoned. I don't envy him what is ahead, but I'm glad it's him and not the alternative.
I was with your comment until the last half of the last sentence. As a result, I cannot give you a "Like."
Carney’s honeymoon will end when he tables his budget. I am very nervous for what this will bring.
Why? Do you think that he will actually do anything that is unpopular with the LPC base? I don't.
A lot of Carney supporters are on the "he's a banker, he's responsible" line, and the others are civil servants & NGO workers looting the treasury.
The budget is when at least one of those groups realize they've been had.
Carney must chart a course between what is good for Canada and what will placate the Left within the Liberal Party of Canada and their base in central Canada. So far Carney has been mostly talk on rebuilding the Canadian economy and seems reluctant to actually put a shovel in the ground.
What a waste of space. This author didn’t answer his own question. Perhaps he should read Gary Clement’s latest offering in Adam Cooper’s “ The Bureau” and ask himself to ask that question again before we get a rehash of Liberal failures.
Sam Cooper
The budget is coming.
$19 for a teen burger combo at A&W! It's all over, people! It's all over.