This country resembles the former Yugoslavia. It is Balkanized, as alluded to by Mr. Colledge, and needs a Tito to postpone the inevitable. The regional interests are mutually exclusive and the best that can be hoped for is a budget that prioritizes development based upon rational principles, not ideology.
Dr. Carney is an ideologue who can't hold a candle to Tito. He will appease the LPC voting base at the expense of the Western provinces. The existential threat to the post-nation state comes from within.
I was there in Yugoslavia and watched it all fall apart. You are right, the regional and ethnic balance all fell apart, but the main reason wasn't Tito's death, it was running out of money.
Debt was the fuel that smoothed over all the regional and ethnic issues. Debt and equalization were used for the exact same reasons as in Canada. Funds flowed from Slovenia and Croatia to Bosnia, Macedonia and especially Serbia for "equality." They even had one ethnic group using language and culture to basically justify taking all the good public sector jobs.
I suspect the same would happen in Canada as in Yugoslavia once the money runs out to keep everyone on board.
Slovenia, the richest Republic, separated first because being part of Yugoslavia meant heavy costs for marginal gains. They saw the EU forming and chose their neighbour over Yugoslavia. Does that remind you of another wealthy area in Canada?
The Canadian people and their government seem to be going in different directions. Canadians may yearn for long ago feelings of belonging, optimism and security, their government is still stuck in the green dream, more interested in their ideology than making the country prosperous and ready to respond the challenges ahead. I'm pretty sure Carney is a smart man but what I've seen from him so far is that he is completely ill equipped and unable to respond to today's challenges because he can't relate to what ails Canada. Carney talks a good game but has no plan. Just like his predecessor, he seems more interested in the perks of the job rather than the job itself. Being PM means being a public servant to ALL Canadians, that is not what I see from this Carney liberal government. I hope he proves me wrong in time but what I've seen so far doesn't leave me very optimistic.
While there are countless lines that can be used to classify Canadians economically, one you don’t mention is that between people who work for Government and government funded agencies, and those who work in the “free” enterprise economy. Also instead of relying on government to invest in productivity improvements, because any private investor would be crazy and betraying shareholders to invest in Canada with all its regulations, hopefully Canada will address why Investors are avoiding it. For instance a supposedly Canadian Quebec firm like Alimentation Couche-Tard chose to invest by acquiring Circle K and also nearly got the 7-11 chain recently. They obviously found Americans easier to deal with than English Canadians.
Sorry, but Carney already played the "let's build stuff, quickly" card in the last election, and so far all he has built is more bureaucracy...
...and now he appears to be actively engineering his own fall, a snap election and try for a majority.
What he is hoping for is that Canadians are too dull to recognize that although he has promised a lot, he has so far accomplished very little, and that a second chorus of "Elbows Up" will help him solidify his position.
It has been fun this past week watching the Liberals trying to pretend out loud that it is the Conservatives who are "forcing" an election on Canadians - as if 144 Conservative MPs are poised to outvote 169 Liberal MPs somehow...
Can anyone remember a single incidence of an Official Opposition voting WITH the government on a budget bill...? As far as I know, this has NEVER happened in Canadian history.
"... unemployment is not a significant source of alarm for Boomers ..."
Actually a foolish statement as ever so many of we Boomers are retired or almost retired. By definition, if we are retired, we aren't terribly concerned about unemployment because we have (largely) chosen to leave employment.
The other generations, though, are quite logically concerned about unemployment - and they should be! The fact is that the federal government has made a complete hash of the economy over the last ten or so years so that employment is much more precarious. Of course, the world as it is today, what with DJT and tariffs and so forth, make our already incredibly weakened economic muscle that much more tenuous.
You quote from MC's recent speech, "We used to build things in this country; we can build again." Yes, we did and no we won't. The fact is that MC has given the various provinces, interest groups, etc. a veto over "nation building" [MC's phrasing] projects. It is obvious to all that you can't please everyone all the time but, nevertheless, MC is handing out vetoes. So, MC can say that and he can mean it and the public can applaud it but unless MC is willing to force particular projects over the vetoes of provinces, interest groups, etc. such projects will not happen. In particular, such projects will not occur on an accelerated time frame: that just isn't where Canada is now.
If the geriatric are not concerned about the economic conditions for the people keeping the country running and the coffers full (or uh not too empty), the problem is surely that we've let the unproductive become too sure their handouts and services are coming no matter what.
Hmmm ... calling me "geriatric" - almost as if you are trying to, what's that word? insult me? No, I don't think so.
Now, let us start by agreeing that far, far, far too many Boomers care only for themselves and they do and have voted for the Liberal Party and are concerned only with maintaining their own comfort. Please note that I said "far, far, far too many" and I sure as hell didn't say "all". There are many of us who have been sufficiently lucky to retire but we absolutely know how lucky we are because we see those seniors who have not been able to retire and we see our children and grandchildren who have issues with housing, employment and a myriad of other issues.
I have known quite a number of people who say something like, "I was able to buy my house all by myself (ignoring a spouse, the idiots) so, damn it, my kids can do the same." I grew up at a time when jobs were plentiful and housing was (relatively) inexpensive. Those things are certainly not the same now and anyone who tries to equate the (incredibly fortunate) conditions of their twenties and thirties to today is simply an ass.
The best that I can suggest is that folks in their twenties and thirties talk to their parents and tell those parents that the fault for all these problems is the Boomers who keep electing the Liberals.
Yes, "... we've let the unproductive become too sure their handouts and services are coming ..." so let's trim the civil service dramatically, just as a start. I would also add that most of Canada is addicted to "free" [it damned well isn't free] stuff from the government; we need to start paying our own way as individuals an as a society for so much more.
Whether or not the public service is too big, wages are not a handout. The 1/6 of the federal budget spent on welfare for seniors is. Everyone might like free stuff, but let’s not pretend not to know who’s actually getting it.
First, I would argue that being paid to do pointless work is essentially a handout.
Second, as a senior, I absolutely agree that there are far too many people receiving far, far too much money. I will concentrate on two programs only (although there are other programs, of course): CPP and OAS.
CPP is funded by the individual senior and that senior's former employers; it is essentially (as I understand matters) properly funded by the recipients (current and future) and the former and current employers of those folks.
By contrast, the OAS program is pure welfare. It was originally started to provide income to literally destitute folks and it spread. The OAS has the clawback mechanism to prevent folks who are too, too wealthy from benefiting from OAS. From my perspective, the level at which the clawback comes into effect is too high and should be significantly lowered. Further, I believe that the clawback should consider joint income of both spouses. That last has been resisted for many years as being unfair to women but, folks, this is welfare, pure and simple.
It may be that such a lowering of the clawback level might hurt my wife and me; if so, that is just the way it is. Right now we are considerably under the clawback level and we are managing reasonably well; it is from that perspective that I argue for a reduction in the clawback level and the joint calculation.
As for free stuff, yes, seniors get it but the whole population gets free stuff. I could point to medicare and say that there should be co-payments or I could point to many other programs and say they should be reformed. In fact, I do believe that there should be reform of medicare and other programs but as you point out, the welfare payments to we seniors are the low hanging fruit. While those payments are the low hanging fruit one cannot ignore the other areas in which changes must also be made.
Doug, a) I am a Boomer; b) I don't have any pension whatsoever once I get past CPP and OAS so my pension is damned well not indexed. Yes, I have savings and, yes, with luck (a lot of luck) it will appreciate. On the other hand, [I am a retired accountant] I have seen many clients wherein their savings invested in the stock market dropped VERY precipitously. My own savings are in the stock market so we have been benefiting but only somewhat as we have been fairly conservative, remembering those precipitous declines.
My point is that a) please don't judge all Boomers by retired civil servants and b) many of us are terrifically concerned about our children and grandchildren and are going out of our way to attempt to ameliorate the difficulties they face. Is that sufficient? Nope, but it is the best that I/we can do.
There is a culture of time and place, eastern and boomer leaning, where government is expected to provide and part of "equality" is to not worry where those funds come from.
You are correct: it is cultural. And, it sickens me, quite frankly.
A dependence on the government to provide "all that is good" so to speak is simply a sign of a decadent society moving toward irredemption. Equality is a goal toward which everyone should aspire and strive. My point is that government cannot provide or give equality; it must be earned by each of us every day through our own activity and our daily demonstration that we accept others as being equal to us. That is an integral part of a healthy society.
I've run this question through a few AI models and it makes a good cultural point. A lot of this revolves around French cultural views around the role of the state running into those of the English and others. I don't think it is a coincidence that French speaking countries consistently are among the highest taxed in the world. It's expensive parenting adults.
Combine that with generational and regional considerations, mix in lopsided demographics, and now you have a country where the young are more socially and especially economically conservative than the old.
Canada is going to be a very different place in 15 years. It will be another Quiet Revolution
First, I hope that you are right that Canada will be a different place in fifteen years. Of course, I also hope that "different" means better.
Second, I am not likely to be here as I am very likely to be dead. But, but, but, my children and grandchildren will be here so I get back to my first point.
Some may not be, but many with eye on the overall economy are concerned about inflation. Inflation makes for a weakened society, and that has undesirable results, e.g. even more crime, even worse health care, even worse education system .....
Canada doesn't need higher government spending and an even larger, more intrusive state. It needs the opposite but most Canadians believe Carney when he says that more government will fix our problems so that is what we are going to get. With that, our situation will continue to worsen as capital and people continue to leave the building.
I'm an old faart, but the economic climate for kids getting jobs is a disaster. The days of getting a job with benefits of any kind don't appear to exist, in the name of giving everyone part-time hours and bigger dividends. It's just shit.
As for anything a politician says, I'm tired of the talk. It's just fertiliser. It's the actions that matter, and picking good projects over stupid ones will be key(everyone having a different opinion on which is which). Can they come up with some new bold ideas? Can they be built on time and on budget?
Trudeau was useless, and Pierre is an idiot. Carney better get this right, because the state of current affairs is just depressing.
I agree with most of what you said but don’t think Pierre is an idiot. I think he’s foolishly at times pandering to a part of his base who is not the smartest and that makes him sound like an idiot, but I think he understands much more then he’s given credit for. The thing is, what Canada needs is both a clear-eyed leader and a strong communicator.
Canadians need to be told some difficult truths that they won’t like. The risk to the politician who decides to be honest is tremendously high. But if the person is a strong enough communicator I think it’s possible to unite Canadians around what needs to be done. Many people won’t like it - like the public service. But I think that’s a big part of it. I also think truth and reconciliation has become destructive and placed too much power in the hands of a few who want to cudgel people for things that happened long ago.
Why should an indigenous group hold more power about economic projects moving forward than either the provincial or federal government? That’s doesn’t make any sense.
The agenda driven, activist judiciary is responsible for many of our current woes. Unlike you, I do not believe there is a solution forthcoming that can reunite the provinces. Quebec and Alberta have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship. Like a failed marriage, sometimes the best outcome is an amicable divorce.
I don't look at Alberta as the "enemy". I think they're a little greedy and a little selfish, while currently being led by an idiot. I don't think Alberta's greed is remotely comparable to Quebec's. Quebec's attitude makes Alberta look quite sane. I think we're facing an existential threat from a fascist US, much like Austria in 1938. But we're a hell of a lot stronger together than separate. Alberta on its own is a landlocked nightmare in the making...unless statehood is the goal..
Experience has shown that Alberta is already landlocked, within Confederation, by green ideology. The one thing about the USA, we know money talks.
Regarding Alberta becoming a state within the USA, my wife is rabidly opposed, I am indifferent but can be bought, but my children believe they will have to emigrate there to be successful.
Green energy is already cheaper than oil. It is the future, because oil is a finite resource that is destroying the planet. Look at the damage it is already doing to Alberta's fresh water resources. When your groundwater is showing signs of fracking chemicals, good things aren't in the future.
The US is a fascist, racist, soon to be Christian fundamentalist state. If that's your dream, have at it.
David, if green energy is so cheap why is it that the government is asked for such large green subsidies. Why is it that the green businesses don't simply run the fossil fuel folks out of business.
I will believe that green is cheaper when an electric vehicle is distinctly cheaper than a gasoline/diesel vehicle. As for fuel for that electric vehicle, so much of gas costs are taxes which are not really charged on electricity. Yes, there are riders, etc. on your electric bill but nothing at all like the taxes raised on gas/diesel.
So, again, stop the subsidies to greenies and stop subsidies to fossils and see which survives. It would be interesting.
Some will disagree with this but as I understand it most of the Canadian indigenous groups historically gave up their land via treaty for various forms of compensation. The main holdouts are in BC and this land turnover is wending its way through their court system.
Whether the indigenous groups were conned or not is another topic but the white man’s claims - like the claim of the guy showing up at your door and paving your driveway, replacing your roof or getting you to sign a natural gas contract, is still valid and enforceable under Canadian law.
Canadians cheerfully ignored and put off the claims of the indigenous groups about treaty violations until a Quebec French worthy decided the village golf course needed to be expanded on sacred tribal land. The resulting OKA confrontation tied up the entire Canadian forces for a few weeks and scared the shit out of the ruling elites. All of a sudden the money printing presses were fired up and compensation to the indigenous groups began to be paid out under the guidance of legal firms and commissions of retired politicians. Hence the new found power of these groups.
As an aside I see the ongoing efforts of this elite run government to disarm the Canadian population at large is another consequence of the OKA crisis. As usual it’s misdirected since the First Nations by and large control the firearms license allocations and the only ones being disarmed are the non indigenous law abiding.
Pierre suggesting we need a tariff-free deal with the US is an example of why I call him an idiot.
I have said here numerous times that it's hard to get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up.
IMHO, the reason the Indigenous get the say they do is because it's their land. We made treaties with them that we broke before the ink was dry. Every time we go to court on this, we lose. I don't have to like it, but I think that's reality.
Define "fix". It sounds like you're suggesting a free-for-all?
I'm all in favour of ideas and projects from private business. I've been watching the complete and total grifting operation that 3P partnerships have become...if they were anything else? But I doubt the investment climate is very good right now with an irrational child rapist running the US. So we may have to do some things in-house. Let's hear the options....
Well, as one damned fix, repeal the "nine bad laws" [thank you, Danielle Smith] that prevent pipeline companies from stepping up to propose a pipeline to the BC coast. Those laws outlaw freedom of speech, prohibit the sale of oil overseas, prohibit further development of the oil sands and so forth.
That is not at all a free for all but is a withdrawal by the government from a violation of basic rights (freedom of speech), prohibition of sale of our resources - even if such a sale were approved the laws make it illegal to actually sell it and so forth.
Actually, if the bad laws were eliminated the investment climate would be much better. We cannot do any of the "things" in house if those laws remain. Of course, that may be the idea ....
TMX isn't at capacity yet. So is there a need for another pipeline to the west coast, or is there an actual demand for it in 5 years? Or is that just a loud talking point to distract from the calamity that her government appears to be? Who is the buyer? Your second paragraph is identical to the first.
You asked so I have responded. A warning, this is very lengthy but the subject is not easy.
You are correct that TMX is not yet at capacity but it is coming very close. If you recall, TMX took FOREVER to actually be built but that was after very extensive hearings and court challenges and prior to that there was - as is simply necessary for prudent operators - VERY extensive planning, surveying, yada, yada, yada. Think in the order of ten or more years.
Therefore, if we wait until TMX is full - which will occur fairly soon - and then start the process for a new pipeline then it would be ten years-ish before completion. If you think that MC will make that faster, I have some swamp land to sell you.
Now, as for freedom of speech. There isn't a law that as such prohibits freedom of speech but .... Bill C-59, Amendments to the Competition Act, passed June, 2024 seems terrifically benign and laudable until you really look at it. I will let Mr. Google's summary tell you.
"This bill has recently passed and become law. It includes a "truth-in-advertising" amendment that requires corporations to provide adequate and proper substantiation, in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, for any public claims they make about their environmental benefits or efforts to mitigate climate change. This law does not ban promotion outright but aims to prevent "greenwashing" or misleading advertising."
Sounds good, right? Reasonable? Well, there is that phrase in there, "... in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, for any public claims they make about their environmental benefits or efforts to mitigate climate change ..." The problem is that neither the law nor the regulations specify what "internationally recognized methodology" is the standard. Is it what Greenpeace says? Possibly. Gretta Thunberg's pronouncements? Maybe. The government has absolutely refused to define the term. That is the easy part.
Now, for the penalties. Again, courtesy of Mr. Google.
"... Penalties under Bill C-59 for violating environmental benefit claims include administrative monetary penalties of up to $10 million for a first offense ($15 million for subsequent offenses) or three times the value of the benefit gained, or 3% of a company's global annual gross revenue, whichever is greater ..."
THREE PER CENT OF GLOBAL GROSS REVENUE? That sort of penalty certainly shuts down anyone saying anything at all laudatory about their environmental activities. There simply is no standard to which a company can turn to in order to decide if it is on side.
Well, you say, the government will be reasonable and won't go after a lot of people unreasonably. About which government would you be speaking? Not our federal government. Oh, and now I need to quote from Mr. Google again.
"... private parties, such as consumers, competitors, and environmental groups, will have a private right of action, allowing them to bring cases against companies suspected of greenwashing directly to the Competition Tribunal, which increases the potential for litigation ..."
So, even if the government is reasonable, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg et al can launch a private action. Again, to Mr. Google.
"... The new rules place the burden of proof on the company making the claim to be able to substantiate it with adequate and proper testing or an internationally recognized methodology ..."
Except, of course, there is no definition of that "internationally recognized methodology" so if you were a corporation would you risk a penalty of three per cent of global gross revenue? This vague and stupid law simply shuts down any company telling anything about their environmental activities and programs.
A law that prohibits lying is one thing. A law that sets a standard that cannot be defined and has penalties that can literally bankrupt a company is quite another thing.
Finally, you ask "... is that just a loud talking point to distract from the calamity that her government appears to be?..." I presume that you are referring to Danielle Smith. I further presume that you do not live in Alberta. I do live in Alberta and I see the way that the national media report on her, which, is suspect, is the source of your information. I support some of her policies and oppose others. What I can say is that I agree with her on this particular thing.
One final thing. There is a loud argument [quite frankly, from know nothing folks] that there is no private sector proponent of a pipeline. A quick look see to figure out if a company wants to seriously consider a pipeline would cost perhaps twenty million dollars; that is simply to see if there is any point in expending the actual time, money, energy, etc. to go forward with planning.
In order to build a pipeline, in addition to planning a route and all the engineering (all of which would cost upwards of a billion dollars before any shovel hits the ground) the pipeline company has to see if any oil companies will use the pipeline. No oil company would commit because they can't sell the oil. No oil company would even commit to the quick look see simply because the law prohibits any such activity. The point of that first twenty-ish million is to see if there is any point in spending the next billion or so in planning, etc. If a case cannot be made that a pipeline would be profitable then why would a billion or so be spent? Why, even the twenty-ish million?
The point of the pipeline would be to move oil to tidewater but there is law that prevents oil tankers off the BC northern coast [no other places in Canada with such a ban but there is one for that area thanks to the Face Painter]. Therefore, no oil company will commit to shipping oil that they cannot sell because they cannot load that oil on a tanker that cannot come to port in northern BC. So, no tankers: no oil sales. No oil sales: no pipeline. No pipeline: no pipeline proponents. Simply put, the government put laws in place to prohibit the sale of any more Alberta oil. And you wonder why we ask whether we should stay in Canada. And, of course, Alberta has the BEST environmental standards of any oil jurisdiction in the world but, as noted, we are threatened for saying so. Again, why the hell should we stay in Canada?
Very well said, Ken. Thank you for stating what everyone here in Alberta knows, but central Cdns, tsk, clutch their pearls & endlessly parrot CBC/Ottawa-isms in an attempt to ‘educate Albertans.’ Golly gosh darn, Ken, didn’t you know that TMX is NOT at capacity?! (Someone needs to whisper to them - Albertans have stopped listening to Ontario & Quebec.)
For starters, thank you for taking the time to write all that out.
I agree with the notion that you need to start planning before you run out of capacity. I support the idea of Energy East, and still don't understand why oil isn't being shipped by rail to St John the way it used to be. The Lac Megantic argument holds no water, as there is no comparison between Bakken light crude and dilbit. Yes, it would cost a little more to ship, but it's not a massive amount, and it does get the product to market. I also think there is no better time to get Quebec's buy-in.
As for the tanker ban, I think that's a leftover consequence of the Exxon Valdez. I think the only way around it is to go to the people of Haida Gwai and ask them what they would need to see to ask the government to remove the ban. It won't be an easy sell. But it's on the industry to provide security that an accident won't destroy these people's homeland.
That leads to truth in advertising. You make a lot of trust-related valid points. I don't have an answer to them. However, as I have said here many times, I think having extraction companies put 5% of pre-tax profits in escrow for clean-up when the extraction is wound up solves a whole lot of those issues. There is money to be made for companies involved. Yes, it would set a new global standard for clean-up, and they wouldn't like it, but they'd still make their millions. Alberta has a $33 billion orphan well clean-up deficit hanging over its head. That cost will be paid by Canadians, not just Albertans. We've allowed companies to extract, declare bankruptcy and walk away. No wonder no one trusts the industry. And Danielle has killed most of Alberta's green energy projects, a move so shortsighted as to be almost unimaginable. Talk about killing investment in the province. Having all your eggs in one basket is abd diea if you trip.
Alberta has serious water issues. You already have traces of fracking chemicals showing up in the groundwater. Climate change has reduced the snowpack and is melting glaciers at unheard-of rates. There is now talk of diverting watersheds to try and prop up one that are having bad years, with as yet unknown environmental consequences. You may have the cleanest oil standards in the world. Great. But extraction still comes with consequences. You may not be alive to see them, but they're still there for your grandkids.
We all know Trudeau was an idiot. In fact, calling him an idiot is an insult to idiots. But it's not his fault he won.
So I don't have all the answers. I hope you stay. I think if you go, you're screwed. I don't think being a landlocked island dependent largely on oil, which is a dying industry whether you want to beleive it or not is a terrible straegy. You'll ship a massive amount of discounted oil to the US. Then, you're screwed because you have no fallback and no water, and they'll leave the cleanup entirely on you. It's a really interesting and incredibly complex debate. I think you have far better chances with Carney than with Trudeau.
1)outline an effective means of supporting private sector investment by removing/revising the ideologically based impediments created by the previous government, and
2) prune the nonproductive and bloated middle management of the federal civil service,
It will have a chance to turn the ship.
If either of these problems are ignored we will get an ongoing rehash of the past ten years as the country spirals downward.
Carney's first budget will be a budget that heavily facilitates HIS greenology grifting. To him Canada is just an easy to manipulate population to provide taxes for that. It will be interesting, entertaining and infuriating to observe the "Liberal" verbiage around that.
If I was passing out "mid term" marks for this new administration and the opposition parties role in things I would struggle to be very generous.
The competent banker techno wizard allure of Carney was squandered by an extremely short spring session and then off for summer holidays. You would never know that Parliament is the place to do the nation's business when the Liberals announced that crafting a budget was too hard with all the Trump uncertainty and Canadians would have to make do with a fiscal update in the fall. This is right out of the Trudeau playbook, fire hosing money around in the pandemic with no budget constraints to consider. I was looking for better, not more of the same reckless spending with no accountability.
Carney has hobbled himself by trying to keep the awkward coalition of peed off NDP voters, green fanatics and old stock, centrist Liberal supporters together. The budget will be tailored towards these bosom buddies with lots of cash headed towards initiatives with little payback except votes for the Liberals. So much for "building things".
And then there is the opposition which is useless (Greens), hopeless (NDP), short on constructive criticism (Bloc) and unable to read the room (Conservatives). The Carney government has lost a significant chunk of ground in the polls since the election in May. Is it too much to ask that the opposition parties get their s^*t together and make the Liberals earn their way?
He needs to flood the zone with reforms to overwhelm groups that oppose. Something like 50K federal service layoffs, unilaterally converting public sector pensions to DB, clawing back child tax benefit and OAS from middle and high income earners, walking away from childcare, dental care, pharmacists and the national disability benefit, replacing all 9 of the anti-development laws and aggressively fighting Supreme Court rulings that expand rights.
I am not alarmed, which likely makes me a "complacent boomer" in the eyes of many (I am a "late-stage", i.e.: 1960s, boomer).
In the Alberta of the early 1980s, where I grew up, unemployment was most definitely top-of-mind for those of us who were "coming of age" at the time. The NEP had knocked the wind out of the province's economic sails, and not a few of our friends were relocating to Vancouver, Toronto or other places. But we managed, eventually, to make it through.
I agree, though, that the Prime Minister and his government "have not got much time" to convince Canadians that they have ideas that can "set things to right".
Nonetheless, I think that it is also crucial to acknowledge that we are, perhaps, more vulnerable to the cruel winds of external whim today than we have been since the early 1970s. Then, as now, the United States had a president who claimed that his country was being taken advantage of. Then, as now, that president rejigged fundamental principles governing international trade and investment.
The difference?
The United States is no longer the only economic hyper power in the world. And it is certainly no longer looked upon as a flawed, but still indispensable, defender of democratic governance, rights and freedoms and the rule of law.
So, as much as the government must be accountable to the people, perhaps we must also open our eyes to the very, very difficult dynamic that we all face. A dynamic that is, to be realistic, somewhat out of our control.
So many of the problems are actually Provincial or municipal (housing, healthcare, etc). I'm sure the poor outcomes will continue to get dropped at Carney's feet, but I don't have my hopes up that this budget will be able to fix much.
It is the feds that create or destroy economic growth. So the responsibility for economy, federal, provincial or municipal, belongs to the federal government.
"So many of the problems are actually Provincial or municipal (housing, healthcare, etc) ..."
Agreed. So, why are the feds sticking their stinking noses in those areas?
If the responsibilities are clear [they are clear in the Constitution, just not in practice] the electorate would discipline any province, municipality, etc. that didn't act properly. When the feds stick their stinking noses in it results in finger pointing about responsibility, etc.
So, don't expect this budget to fix those sorts of responsibility thingys.
True but too much taxation flows to Ottawa and federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction (health, education, childcare, disability) comes with both financial and opportunity costs. Canada needs to rebalance the federation by dramatically reducing federal tax rates so that the provinces can collect more taxes to manage areas of provincial jurisdiction. Dramatically reduced federal transfers to the provinces would be conditional on the provinces maintaining absolute free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Ottawa could then focus on defence, border security, immigration and financial regulation.
Canada also spends too much on people and not enough on things. Corporate tax rates and deprecation schedules are not globally competitive. Beyond taxes, it should pursue other ways to incent capital investment, perhaps allowing non real estate capital gains to roll into other investments. This would need to be funded by aggressive claw back of the child tax benefit and OAS from people earning above median incomes. Other funds could beibersted from bloated public sector headcount, pay and especially pensions.
Finally, Canada needs to streamline its regulatory environment to eliminate duplication and reduce the ability for NIMBY and other activist groups to impose delays. The lowest hanging fruit would be to defund any NGO engaged in lobbying. If those groups want to lobby, they can fundraise.
Carney is too beholden to Boomers, the Laurentian Elite and public sector unions to turn the country around. While I have misgivings about Poilievre's leadership, he did come close to forming a government with minimal support from those groups.
Carney knows what needs to be done. His problem is as you said, his coalition do well with the current Canada, even if it is toxic for everyone else and for the country. There are two Canada's, and our only hope is that this other Canada is dying out.
The single most important thing for the future is that we need to get/force the currently-protected geriatric caste to have skin in the game. Even more than immediate spending issues, it's a total unsustainable disaster for a functioning economy or political system to have promised the elderly they could somehow have decades of life insulated from the economic conditions affecting everyone else. (This is also what's missing when you see complaints about young people being too zero-sum or wanting to take away from older people just because they themselves have missed out. Not only is it completely rational in a democratic system to want fellow voters to be hurt when you're hurt, it's all but necessary for not too many to be protected from the real economy.)
More than 40 years ago, incidentally before the boomers were really in charge, a commission on pension reform suggested indexing seniors' benefits to the number of workers and the size of the economy. We need something like this now, and you might even be able to squeak it through if it protected near-term benefits enough. Housing is even worse in terms of divided interests - the solutions aren't really politically viable, but how fast would boomers' get over their luxury beliefs about sprawl and greenbelts if the tax structure meant they couldn't afford the land under their home as imposed scarcity drove up prices?
This country resembles the former Yugoslavia. It is Balkanized, as alluded to by Mr. Colledge, and needs a Tito to postpone the inevitable. The regional interests are mutually exclusive and the best that can be hoped for is a budget that prioritizes development based upon rational principles, not ideology.
Dr. Carney is an ideologue who can't hold a candle to Tito. He will appease the LPC voting base at the expense of the Western provinces. The existential threat to the post-nation state comes from within.
I was there in Yugoslavia and watched it all fall apart. You are right, the regional and ethnic balance all fell apart, but the main reason wasn't Tito's death, it was running out of money.
Debt was the fuel that smoothed over all the regional and ethnic issues. Debt and equalization were used for the exact same reasons as in Canada. Funds flowed from Slovenia and Croatia to Bosnia, Macedonia and especially Serbia for "equality." They even had one ethnic group using language and culture to basically justify taking all the good public sector jobs.
I suspect the same would happen in Canada as in Yugoslavia once the money runs out to keep everyone on board.
Slovenia, the richest Republic, separated first because being part of Yugoslavia meant heavy costs for marginal gains. They saw the EU forming and chose their neighbour over Yugoslavia. Does that remind you of another wealthy area in Canada?
The Canadian people and their government seem to be going in different directions. Canadians may yearn for long ago feelings of belonging, optimism and security, their government is still stuck in the green dream, more interested in their ideology than making the country prosperous and ready to respond the challenges ahead. I'm pretty sure Carney is a smart man but what I've seen from him so far is that he is completely ill equipped and unable to respond to today's challenges because he can't relate to what ails Canada. Carney talks a good game but has no plan. Just like his predecessor, he seems more interested in the perks of the job rather than the job itself. Being PM means being a public servant to ALL Canadians, that is not what I see from this Carney liberal government. I hope he proves me wrong in time but what I've seen so far doesn't leave me very optimistic.
While there are countless lines that can be used to classify Canadians economically, one you don’t mention is that between people who work for Government and government funded agencies, and those who work in the “free” enterprise economy. Also instead of relying on government to invest in productivity improvements, because any private investor would be crazy and betraying shareholders to invest in Canada with all its regulations, hopefully Canada will address why Investors are avoiding it. For instance a supposedly Canadian Quebec firm like Alimentation Couche-Tard chose to invest by acquiring Circle K and also nearly got the 7-11 chain recently. They obviously found Americans easier to deal with than English Canadians.
Sorry, but Carney already played the "let's build stuff, quickly" card in the last election, and so far all he has built is more bureaucracy...
...and now he appears to be actively engineering his own fall, a snap election and try for a majority.
What he is hoping for is that Canadians are too dull to recognize that although he has promised a lot, he has so far accomplished very little, and that a second chorus of "Elbows Up" will help him solidify his position.
It has been fun this past week watching the Liberals trying to pretend out loud that it is the Conservatives who are "forcing" an election on Canadians - as if 144 Conservative MPs are poised to outvote 169 Liberal MPs somehow...
Can anyone remember a single incidence of an Official Opposition voting WITH the government on a budget bill...? As far as I know, this has NEVER happened in Canadian history.
................ Canadians are too dull ................ based on the voting patterns since 2015 ........
"... unemployment is not a significant source of alarm for Boomers ..."
Actually a foolish statement as ever so many of we Boomers are retired or almost retired. By definition, if we are retired, we aren't terribly concerned about unemployment because we have (largely) chosen to leave employment.
The other generations, though, are quite logically concerned about unemployment - and they should be! The fact is that the federal government has made a complete hash of the economy over the last ten or so years so that employment is much more precarious. Of course, the world as it is today, what with DJT and tariffs and so forth, make our already incredibly weakened economic muscle that much more tenuous.
You quote from MC's recent speech, "We used to build things in this country; we can build again." Yes, we did and no we won't. The fact is that MC has given the various provinces, interest groups, etc. a veto over "nation building" [MC's phrasing] projects. It is obvious to all that you can't please everyone all the time but, nevertheless, MC is handing out vetoes. So, MC can say that and he can mean it and the public can applaud it but unless MC is willing to force particular projects over the vetoes of provinces, interest groups, etc. such projects will not happen. In particular, such projects will not occur on an accelerated time frame: that just isn't where Canada is now.
If the geriatric are not concerned about the economic conditions for the people keeping the country running and the coffers full (or uh not too empty), the problem is surely that we've let the unproductive become too sure their handouts and services are coming no matter what.
Hmmm ... calling me "geriatric" - almost as if you are trying to, what's that word? insult me? No, I don't think so.
Now, let us start by agreeing that far, far, far too many Boomers care only for themselves and they do and have voted for the Liberal Party and are concerned only with maintaining their own comfort. Please note that I said "far, far, far too many" and I sure as hell didn't say "all". There are many of us who have been sufficiently lucky to retire but we absolutely know how lucky we are because we see those seniors who have not been able to retire and we see our children and grandchildren who have issues with housing, employment and a myriad of other issues.
I have known quite a number of people who say something like, "I was able to buy my house all by myself (ignoring a spouse, the idiots) so, damn it, my kids can do the same." I grew up at a time when jobs were plentiful and housing was (relatively) inexpensive. Those things are certainly not the same now and anyone who tries to equate the (incredibly fortunate) conditions of their twenties and thirties to today is simply an ass.
The best that I can suggest is that folks in their twenties and thirties talk to their parents and tell those parents that the fault for all these problems is the Boomers who keep electing the Liberals.
Yes, "... we've let the unproductive become too sure their handouts and services are coming ..." so let's trim the civil service dramatically, just as a start. I would also add that most of Canada is addicted to "free" [it damned well isn't free] stuff from the government; we need to start paying our own way as individuals an as a society for so much more.
Whether or not the public service is too big, wages are not a handout. The 1/6 of the federal budget spent on welfare for seniors is. Everyone might like free stuff, but let’s not pretend not to know who’s actually getting it.
You raise two issues.
First, I would argue that being paid to do pointless work is essentially a handout.
Second, as a senior, I absolutely agree that there are far too many people receiving far, far too much money. I will concentrate on two programs only (although there are other programs, of course): CPP and OAS.
CPP is funded by the individual senior and that senior's former employers; it is essentially (as I understand matters) properly funded by the recipients (current and future) and the former and current employers of those folks.
By contrast, the OAS program is pure welfare. It was originally started to provide income to literally destitute folks and it spread. The OAS has the clawback mechanism to prevent folks who are too, too wealthy from benefiting from OAS. From my perspective, the level at which the clawback comes into effect is too high and should be significantly lowered. Further, I believe that the clawback should consider joint income of both spouses. That last has been resisted for many years as being unfair to women but, folks, this is welfare, pure and simple.
It may be that such a lowering of the clawback level might hurt my wife and me; if so, that is just the way it is. Right now we are considerably under the clawback level and we are managing reasonably well; it is from that perspective that I argue for a reduction in the clawback level and the joint calculation.
As for free stuff, yes, seniors get it but the whole population gets free stuff. I could point to medicare and say that there should be co-payments or I could point to many other programs and say they should be reformed. In fact, I do believe that there should be reform of medicare and other programs but as you point out, the welfare payments to we seniors are the low hanging fruit. While those payments are the low hanging fruit one cannot ignore the other areas in which changes must also be made.
Boomers also aren't concerned about inflation. Their pensions are indexed and their asset welarh generally appreciates.
Doug, a) I am a Boomer; b) I don't have any pension whatsoever once I get past CPP and OAS so my pension is damned well not indexed. Yes, I have savings and, yes, with luck (a lot of luck) it will appreciate. On the other hand, [I am a retired accountant] I have seen many clients wherein their savings invested in the stock market dropped VERY precipitously. My own savings are in the stock market so we have been benefiting but only somewhat as we have been fairly conservative, remembering those precipitous declines.
My point is that a) please don't judge all Boomers by retired civil servants and b) many of us are terrifically concerned about our children and grandchildren and are going out of our way to attempt to ameliorate the difficulties they face. Is that sufficient? Nope, but it is the best that I/we can do.
There is a culture of time and place, eastern and boomer leaning, where government is expected to provide and part of "equality" is to not worry where those funds come from.
The problem is cultural.
You are correct: it is cultural. And, it sickens me, quite frankly.
A dependence on the government to provide "all that is good" so to speak is simply a sign of a decadent society moving toward irredemption. Equality is a goal toward which everyone should aspire and strive. My point is that government cannot provide or give equality; it must be earned by each of us every day through our own activity and our daily demonstration that we accept others as being equal to us. That is an integral part of a healthy society.
Or, at least, that is my view on "equality".
I've run this question through a few AI models and it makes a good cultural point. A lot of this revolves around French cultural views around the role of the state running into those of the English and others. I don't think it is a coincidence that French speaking countries consistently are among the highest taxed in the world. It's expensive parenting adults.
Combine that with generational and regional considerations, mix in lopsided demographics, and now you have a country where the young are more socially and especially economically conservative than the old.
Canada is going to be a very different place in 15 years. It will be another Quiet Revolution
Two points.
First, I hope that you are right that Canada will be a different place in fifteen years. Of course, I also hope that "different" means better.
Second, I am not likely to be here as I am very likely to be dead. But, but, but, my children and grandchildren will be here so I get back to my first point.
Some may not be, but many with eye on the overall economy are concerned about inflation. Inflation makes for a weakened society, and that has undesirable results, e.g. even more crime, even worse health care, even worse education system .....
Canada doesn't need higher government spending and an even larger, more intrusive state. It needs the opposite but most Canadians believe Carney when he says that more government will fix our problems so that is what we are going to get. With that, our situation will continue to worsen as capital and people continue to leave the building.
I'm an old faart, but the economic climate for kids getting jobs is a disaster. The days of getting a job with benefits of any kind don't appear to exist, in the name of giving everyone part-time hours and bigger dividends. It's just shit.
As for anything a politician says, I'm tired of the talk. It's just fertiliser. It's the actions that matter, and picking good projects over stupid ones will be key(everyone having a different opinion on which is which). Can they come up with some new bold ideas? Can they be built on time and on budget?
Trudeau was useless, and Pierre is an idiot. Carney better get this right, because the state of current affairs is just depressing.
I agree with most of what you said but don’t think Pierre is an idiot. I think he’s foolishly at times pandering to a part of his base who is not the smartest and that makes him sound like an idiot, but I think he understands much more then he’s given credit for. The thing is, what Canada needs is both a clear-eyed leader and a strong communicator.
Canadians need to be told some difficult truths that they won’t like. The risk to the politician who decides to be honest is tremendously high. But if the person is a strong enough communicator I think it’s possible to unite Canadians around what needs to be done. Many people won’t like it - like the public service. But I think that’s a big part of it. I also think truth and reconciliation has become destructive and placed too much power in the hands of a few who want to cudgel people for things that happened long ago.
Why should an indigenous group hold more power about economic projects moving forward than either the provincial or federal government? That’s doesn’t make any sense.
The agenda driven, activist judiciary is responsible for many of our current woes. Unlike you, I do not believe there is a solution forthcoming that can reunite the provinces. Quebec and Alberta have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship. Like a failed marriage, sometimes the best outcome is an amicable divorce.
I don't look at Alberta as the "enemy". I think they're a little greedy and a little selfish, while currently being led by an idiot. I don't think Alberta's greed is remotely comparable to Quebec's. Quebec's attitude makes Alberta look quite sane. I think we're facing an existential threat from a fascist US, much like Austria in 1938. But we're a hell of a lot stronger together than separate. Alberta on its own is a landlocked nightmare in the making...unless statehood is the goal..
Once I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.
Experience has shown that Alberta is already landlocked, within Confederation, by green ideology. The one thing about the USA, we know money talks.
Regarding Alberta becoming a state within the USA, my wife is rabidly opposed, I am indifferent but can be bought, but my children believe they will have to emigrate there to be successful.
They are the future of Alberta.
Green energy is already cheaper than oil. It is the future, because oil is a finite resource that is destroying the planet. Look at the damage it is already doing to Alberta's fresh water resources. When your groundwater is showing signs of fracking chemicals, good things aren't in the future.
The US is a fascist, racist, soon to be Christian fundamentalist state. If that's your dream, have at it.
David, if green energy is so cheap why is it that the government is asked for such large green subsidies. Why is it that the green businesses don't simply run the fossil fuel folks out of business.
I will believe that green is cheaper when an electric vehicle is distinctly cheaper than a gasoline/diesel vehicle. As for fuel for that electric vehicle, so much of gas costs are taxes which are not really charged on electricity. Yes, there are riders, etc. on your electric bill but nothing at all like the taxes raised on gas/diesel.
So, again, stop the subsidies to greenies and stop subsidies to fossils and see which survives. It would be interesting.
Some will disagree with this but as I understand it most of the Canadian indigenous groups historically gave up their land via treaty for various forms of compensation. The main holdouts are in BC and this land turnover is wending its way through their court system.
Whether the indigenous groups were conned or not is another topic but the white man’s claims - like the claim of the guy showing up at your door and paving your driveway, replacing your roof or getting you to sign a natural gas contract, is still valid and enforceable under Canadian law.
Canadians cheerfully ignored and put off the claims of the indigenous groups about treaty violations until a Quebec French worthy decided the village golf course needed to be expanded on sacred tribal land. The resulting OKA confrontation tied up the entire Canadian forces for a few weeks and scared the shit out of the ruling elites. All of a sudden the money printing presses were fired up and compensation to the indigenous groups began to be paid out under the guidance of legal firms and commissions of retired politicians. Hence the new found power of these groups.
As an aside I see the ongoing efforts of this elite run government to disarm the Canadian population at large is another consequence of the OKA crisis. As usual it’s misdirected since the First Nations by and large control the firearms license allocations and the only ones being disarmed are the non indigenous law abiding.
There is no question that we need more truth.
Pierre suggesting we need a tariff-free deal with the US is an example of why I call him an idiot.
I have said here numerous times that it's hard to get elected telling people they have to give things up. We have to give things up.
IMHO, the reason the Indigenous get the say they do is because it's their land. We made treaties with them that we broke before the ink was dry. Every time we go to court on this, we lose. I don't have to like it, but I think that's reality.
David, why should the feds pick among projects? Instead, they should fix the laws, regulations, etc. that prevent the private sector from doing that.
Define "fix". It sounds like you're suggesting a free-for-all?
I'm all in favour of ideas and projects from private business. I've been watching the complete and total grifting operation that 3P partnerships have become...if they were anything else? But I doubt the investment climate is very good right now with an irrational child rapist running the US. So we may have to do some things in-house. Let's hear the options....
Well, as one damned fix, repeal the "nine bad laws" [thank you, Danielle Smith] that prevent pipeline companies from stepping up to propose a pipeline to the BC coast. Those laws outlaw freedom of speech, prohibit the sale of oil overseas, prohibit further development of the oil sands and so forth.
That is not at all a free for all but is a withdrawal by the government from a violation of basic rights (freedom of speech), prohibition of sale of our resources - even if such a sale were approved the laws make it illegal to actually sell it and so forth.
Actually, if the bad laws were eliminated the investment climate would be much better. We cannot do any of the "things" in house if those laws remain. Of course, that may be the idea ....
TMX isn't at capacity yet. So is there a need for another pipeline to the west coast, or is there an actual demand for it in 5 years? Or is that just a loud talking point to distract from the calamity that her government appears to be? Who is the buyer? Your second paragraph is identical to the first.
What laws outlaw freedom of speech?
You asked so I have responded. A warning, this is very lengthy but the subject is not easy.
You are correct that TMX is not yet at capacity but it is coming very close. If you recall, TMX took FOREVER to actually be built but that was after very extensive hearings and court challenges and prior to that there was - as is simply necessary for prudent operators - VERY extensive planning, surveying, yada, yada, yada. Think in the order of ten or more years.
Therefore, if we wait until TMX is full - which will occur fairly soon - and then start the process for a new pipeline then it would be ten years-ish before completion. If you think that MC will make that faster, I have some swamp land to sell you.
Now, as for freedom of speech. There isn't a law that as such prohibits freedom of speech but .... Bill C-59, Amendments to the Competition Act, passed June, 2024 seems terrifically benign and laudable until you really look at it. I will let Mr. Google's summary tell you.
"This bill has recently passed and become law. It includes a "truth-in-advertising" amendment that requires corporations to provide adequate and proper substantiation, in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, for any public claims they make about their environmental benefits or efforts to mitigate climate change. This law does not ban promotion outright but aims to prevent "greenwashing" or misleading advertising."
Sounds good, right? Reasonable? Well, there is that phrase in there, "... in accordance with internationally recognized methodology, for any public claims they make about their environmental benefits or efforts to mitigate climate change ..." The problem is that neither the law nor the regulations specify what "internationally recognized methodology" is the standard. Is it what Greenpeace says? Possibly. Gretta Thunberg's pronouncements? Maybe. The government has absolutely refused to define the term. That is the easy part.
Now, for the penalties. Again, courtesy of Mr. Google.
"... Penalties under Bill C-59 for violating environmental benefit claims include administrative monetary penalties of up to $10 million for a first offense ($15 million for subsequent offenses) or three times the value of the benefit gained, or 3% of a company's global annual gross revenue, whichever is greater ..."
THREE PER CENT OF GLOBAL GROSS REVENUE? That sort of penalty certainly shuts down anyone saying anything at all laudatory about their environmental activities. There simply is no standard to which a company can turn to in order to decide if it is on side.
Well, you say, the government will be reasonable and won't go after a lot of people unreasonably. About which government would you be speaking? Not our federal government. Oh, and now I need to quote from Mr. Google again.
"... private parties, such as consumers, competitors, and environmental groups, will have a private right of action, allowing them to bring cases against companies suspected of greenwashing directly to the Competition Tribunal, which increases the potential for litigation ..."
So, even if the government is reasonable, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg et al can launch a private action. Again, to Mr. Google.
"... The new rules place the burden of proof on the company making the claim to be able to substantiate it with adequate and proper testing or an internationally recognized methodology ..."
Except, of course, there is no definition of that "internationally recognized methodology" so if you were a corporation would you risk a penalty of three per cent of global gross revenue? This vague and stupid law simply shuts down any company telling anything about their environmental activities and programs.
A law that prohibits lying is one thing. A law that sets a standard that cannot be defined and has penalties that can literally bankrupt a company is quite another thing.
Finally, you ask "... is that just a loud talking point to distract from the calamity that her government appears to be?..." I presume that you are referring to Danielle Smith. I further presume that you do not live in Alberta. I do live in Alberta and I see the way that the national media report on her, which, is suspect, is the source of your information. I support some of her policies and oppose others. What I can say is that I agree with her on this particular thing.
One final thing. There is a loud argument [quite frankly, from know nothing folks] that there is no private sector proponent of a pipeline. A quick look see to figure out if a company wants to seriously consider a pipeline would cost perhaps twenty million dollars; that is simply to see if there is any point in expending the actual time, money, energy, etc. to go forward with planning.
In order to build a pipeline, in addition to planning a route and all the engineering (all of which would cost upwards of a billion dollars before any shovel hits the ground) the pipeline company has to see if any oil companies will use the pipeline. No oil company would commit because they can't sell the oil. No oil company would even commit to the quick look see simply because the law prohibits any such activity. The point of that first twenty-ish million is to see if there is any point in spending the next billion or so in planning, etc. If a case cannot be made that a pipeline would be profitable then why would a billion or so be spent? Why, even the twenty-ish million?
The point of the pipeline would be to move oil to tidewater but there is law that prevents oil tankers off the BC northern coast [no other places in Canada with such a ban but there is one for that area thanks to the Face Painter]. Therefore, no oil company will commit to shipping oil that they cannot sell because they cannot load that oil on a tanker that cannot come to port in northern BC. So, no tankers: no oil sales. No oil sales: no pipeline. No pipeline: no pipeline proponents. Simply put, the government put laws in place to prohibit the sale of any more Alberta oil. And you wonder why we ask whether we should stay in Canada. And, of course, Alberta has the BEST environmental standards of any oil jurisdiction in the world but, as noted, we are threatened for saying so. Again, why the hell should we stay in Canada?
Very well said, Ken. Thank you for stating what everyone here in Alberta knows, but central Cdns, tsk, clutch their pearls & endlessly parrot CBC/Ottawa-isms in an attempt to ‘educate Albertans.’ Golly gosh darn, Ken, didn’t you know that TMX is NOT at capacity?! (Someone needs to whisper to them - Albertans have stopped listening to Ontario & Quebec.)
For starters, thank you for taking the time to write all that out.
I agree with the notion that you need to start planning before you run out of capacity. I support the idea of Energy East, and still don't understand why oil isn't being shipped by rail to St John the way it used to be. The Lac Megantic argument holds no water, as there is no comparison between Bakken light crude and dilbit. Yes, it would cost a little more to ship, but it's not a massive amount, and it does get the product to market. I also think there is no better time to get Quebec's buy-in.
As for the tanker ban, I think that's a leftover consequence of the Exxon Valdez. I think the only way around it is to go to the people of Haida Gwai and ask them what they would need to see to ask the government to remove the ban. It won't be an easy sell. But it's on the industry to provide security that an accident won't destroy these people's homeland.
That leads to truth in advertising. You make a lot of trust-related valid points. I don't have an answer to them. However, as I have said here many times, I think having extraction companies put 5% of pre-tax profits in escrow for clean-up when the extraction is wound up solves a whole lot of those issues. There is money to be made for companies involved. Yes, it would set a new global standard for clean-up, and they wouldn't like it, but they'd still make their millions. Alberta has a $33 billion orphan well clean-up deficit hanging over its head. That cost will be paid by Canadians, not just Albertans. We've allowed companies to extract, declare bankruptcy and walk away. No wonder no one trusts the industry. And Danielle has killed most of Alberta's green energy projects, a move so shortsighted as to be almost unimaginable. Talk about killing investment in the province. Having all your eggs in one basket is abd diea if you trip.
Alberta has serious water issues. You already have traces of fracking chemicals showing up in the groundwater. Climate change has reduced the snowpack and is melting glaciers at unheard-of rates. There is now talk of diverting watersheds to try and prop up one that are having bad years, with as yet unknown environmental consequences. You may have the cleanest oil standards in the world. Great. But extraction still comes with consequences. You may not be alive to see them, but they're still there for your grandkids.
We all know Trudeau was an idiot. In fact, calling him an idiot is an insult to idiots. But it's not his fault he won.
So I don't have all the answers. I hope you stay. I think if you go, you're screwed. I don't think being a landlocked island dependent largely on oil, which is a dying industry whether you want to beleive it or not is a terrible straegy. You'll ship a massive amount of discounted oil to the US. Then, you're screwed because you have no fallback and no water, and they'll leave the cleanup entirely on you. It's a really interesting and incredibly complex debate. I think you have far better chances with Carney than with Trudeau.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-oil-well-cleanup-liability-estimate-1.7087133
If this budget can:
1)outline an effective means of supporting private sector investment by removing/revising the ideologically based impediments created by the previous government, and
2) prune the nonproductive and bloated middle management of the federal civil service,
It will have a chance to turn the ship.
If either of these problems are ignored we will get an ongoing rehash of the past ten years as the country spirals downward.
Carney's first budget will be a budget that heavily facilitates HIS greenology grifting. To him Canada is just an easy to manipulate population to provide taxes for that. It will be interesting, entertaining and infuriating to observe the "Liberal" verbiage around that.
If I was passing out "mid term" marks for this new administration and the opposition parties role in things I would struggle to be very generous.
The competent banker techno wizard allure of Carney was squandered by an extremely short spring session and then off for summer holidays. You would never know that Parliament is the place to do the nation's business when the Liberals announced that crafting a budget was too hard with all the Trump uncertainty and Canadians would have to make do with a fiscal update in the fall. This is right out of the Trudeau playbook, fire hosing money around in the pandemic with no budget constraints to consider. I was looking for better, not more of the same reckless spending with no accountability.
Carney has hobbled himself by trying to keep the awkward coalition of peed off NDP voters, green fanatics and old stock, centrist Liberal supporters together. The budget will be tailored towards these bosom buddies with lots of cash headed towards initiatives with little payback except votes for the Liberals. So much for "building things".
And then there is the opposition which is useless (Greens), hopeless (NDP), short on constructive criticism (Bloc) and unable to read the room (Conservatives). The Carney government has lost a significant chunk of ground in the polls since the election in May. Is it too much to ask that the opposition parties get their s^*t together and make the Liberals earn their way?
Carney needs to stop "talking" and get busy "doing" . Canadians are tired of waiting.
If Carney does not come out flying and instill real economic hope with this budget we could all be in for a rough ride, or a roughride.
He needs to flood the zone with reforms to overwhelm groups that oppose. Something like 50K federal service layoffs, unilaterally converting public sector pensions to DB, clawing back child tax benefit and OAS from middle and high income earners, walking away from childcare, dental care, pharmacists and the national disability benefit, replacing all 9 of the anti-development laws and aggressively fighting Supreme Court rulings that expand rights.
I am not alarmed, which likely makes me a "complacent boomer" in the eyes of many (I am a "late-stage", i.e.: 1960s, boomer).
In the Alberta of the early 1980s, where I grew up, unemployment was most definitely top-of-mind for those of us who were "coming of age" at the time. The NEP had knocked the wind out of the province's economic sails, and not a few of our friends were relocating to Vancouver, Toronto or other places. But we managed, eventually, to make it through.
I agree, though, that the Prime Minister and his government "have not got much time" to convince Canadians that they have ideas that can "set things to right".
Nonetheless, I think that it is also crucial to acknowledge that we are, perhaps, more vulnerable to the cruel winds of external whim today than we have been since the early 1970s. Then, as now, the United States had a president who claimed that his country was being taken advantage of. Then, as now, that president rejigged fundamental principles governing international trade and investment.
The difference?
The United States is no longer the only economic hyper power in the world. And it is certainly no longer looked upon as a flawed, but still indispensable, defender of democratic governance, rights and freedoms and the rule of law.
So, as much as the government must be accountable to the people, perhaps we must also open our eyes to the very, very difficult dynamic that we all face. A dynamic that is, to be realistic, somewhat out of our control.
So many of the problems are actually Provincial or municipal (housing, healthcare, etc). I'm sure the poor outcomes will continue to get dropped at Carney's feet, but I don't have my hopes up that this budget will be able to fix much.
It is the feds that create or destroy economic growth. So the responsibility for economy, federal, provincial or municipal, belongs to the federal government.
"So many of the problems are actually Provincial or municipal (housing, healthcare, etc) ..."
Agreed. So, why are the feds sticking their stinking noses in those areas?
If the responsibilities are clear [they are clear in the Constitution, just not in practice] the electorate would discipline any province, municipality, etc. that didn't act properly. When the feds stick their stinking noses in it results in finger pointing about responsibility, etc.
So, don't expect this budget to fix those sorts of responsibility thingys.
True but too much taxation flows to Ottawa and federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction (health, education, childcare, disability) comes with both financial and opportunity costs. Canada needs to rebalance the federation by dramatically reducing federal tax rates so that the provinces can collect more taxes to manage areas of provincial jurisdiction. Dramatically reduced federal transfers to the provinces would be conditional on the provinces maintaining absolute free movement of goods, services, people and capital. Ottawa could then focus on defence, border security, immigration and financial regulation.
Canada also spends too much on people and not enough on things. Corporate tax rates and deprecation schedules are not globally competitive. Beyond taxes, it should pursue other ways to incent capital investment, perhaps allowing non real estate capital gains to roll into other investments. This would need to be funded by aggressive claw back of the child tax benefit and OAS from people earning above median incomes. Other funds could beibersted from bloated public sector headcount, pay and especially pensions.
Finally, Canada needs to streamline its regulatory environment to eliminate duplication and reduce the ability for NIMBY and other activist groups to impose delays. The lowest hanging fruit would be to defund any NGO engaged in lobbying. If those groups want to lobby, they can fundraise.
Carney is too beholden to Boomers, the Laurentian Elite and public sector unions to turn the country around. While I have misgivings about Poilievre's leadership, he did come close to forming a government with minimal support from those groups.
Carney knows what needs to be done. His problem is as you said, his coalition do well with the current Canada, even if it is toxic for everyone else and for the country. There are two Canada's, and our only hope is that this other Canada is dying out.
The single most important thing for the future is that we need to get/force the currently-protected geriatric caste to have skin in the game. Even more than immediate spending issues, it's a total unsustainable disaster for a functioning economy or political system to have promised the elderly they could somehow have decades of life insulated from the economic conditions affecting everyone else. (This is also what's missing when you see complaints about young people being too zero-sum or wanting to take away from older people just because they themselves have missed out. Not only is it completely rational in a democratic system to want fellow voters to be hurt when you're hurt, it's all but necessary for not too many to be protected from the real economy.)
More than 40 years ago, incidentally before the boomers were really in charge, a commission on pension reform suggested indexing seniors' benefits to the number of workers and the size of the economy. We need something like this now, and you might even be able to squeak it through if it protected near-term benefits enough. Housing is even worse in terms of divided interests - the solutions aren't really politically viable, but how fast would boomers' get over their luxury beliefs about sprawl and greenbelts if the tax structure meant they couldn't afford the land under their home as imposed scarcity drove up prices?