An article with all the succinct points Pragmatic Canadian. Remember how the Liberals (although a minority g'ment) won the last election through FEAR. Fear of covid and the unvaccinated. This time around they are using the FEAR of President Trump and becoming the 51st state. The blinders the Liberal supporters wear is bewildering. Their memory is short.
They actually should send President Trump a large bouquet of flowers for without him to rag on, Pierre P would still have a slam dunk. If Carney gets in, I think I will cry. If anyone takes the time to read more about him and his "Values", they would know many of the reasons they should steer clear of him but the sheeple in Canada want security and they think he is going to bring it. Such a delusion. God help us.
A weekly polling article in The Hub today included a survey from Leger. 60% of those who were planning on voting Liberal identified fear as their major motivation. 75% of those who were planning on voting Conservative identified hope for the future as their primary driver. I think that sums up this election in a nutshell.
Fully agree and I will repost as much as I can. Two points to add:
1) There is an article by Mark Carney pushing for squashing the Truckers' protest in Ottawa. Canadians should read it to understand what Carney stands for.
2) Worse than a Liberal majority would be a Liberal minority with the support of BQ and/or NDP.
Perfectly said. I look at my fellow aging baby boomers and I just don’t understand how they aren’t seeing this. How clearer could you have stated this???
Frankly, I'm beyond attempting to understand the voting cohort and will hopefully return to writing again more of policy when this election mercifully concludes. At least policy analysis is something I can wrap my head around. People, however, are increasingly evading my comprehension.
Thx. My sister is 77 and I’m 76. We both have baby boomer friends/ neighbours who held professional jobs. They are all voting Liberal because they fear PP being a mini-Trump. Two had government pensions maybe that’s part of it. One won’t even forward Jordan Peterson’s video to her daughter-in-law that I suggested. Peterson analyzed Carney’s
qualifications to be PM and came up with a No vote. You may have watched it. I’m not always a fan of Peterson but I think he nailed our concerns about Carney. My friend wouldn’t forward it because the DIL supported the truckers movement and IMG will be voting Conservative and she didn’t want to concern herself with her DIL sharing her views on supporting what JP said. ( I’m not qualified to judge the trucker protest as I found it very confusing with a changing scope/agenda/ too many voices).
I am not voting for Poilievre. He has built his support through personal attacks and misleading claims over many years. Most of his backers seem driven by emotion. He and Trudeau have both used division as a political tool, and I want no more of either approach.
In away it’s a shame, because I actually agree with much of the Conservative platform. But there are two dealbreakers for me.
First, I cannot support his plan to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His proposal to take away judicial discretion, using the notwithstanding clause, is not just unconstitutional—it’s dangerous. This clause has never been used by a federal government, and for good reason. Most Canadians see the Charter—along with the flag—as a core symbol of our identity. That kind of power should only be used in rare, urgent cases of national importance. The issue Poilievre is targeting does not meet that bar, and many Canadians don’t support his solution. Giving any prime minister the power to override our Constitution with just 40% of the vote opens the door to real authoritarianism—not the kind people like to imagine, but the kind that slowly becomes real.
Second, I can’t support his plan to gut the CBC. Every developed country in the world—except the U.S.—has a public broadcaster. Canada actually spends less than most. Yes, CBC news reporting leans left, like many public broadcasters and half the media landscape. But Poilievre calling it a Liberal mouthpiece isn’t true, and I believe he knows that. CBC has broken several stories that were damaging to the Liberals and has covered them all. It operates under a legal mandate and independent structure, and it’s a respected source worldwide—often cited by Poilievre himself, and even advertised on by the CPC. I think they should get out of the opinions and sports business. We do not need that from a public broadcaster but we do need the CBC. It is a critical part of the fabric of Canada.
In fact, you could argue that Canada needs a public broadcaster more than almost any other country. We’re large and spread out, with a small, English-speaking population next to the biggest media exporter in the world. The CBC helps us understand our country, our communities, and each other. Replacing it with a commercial U.S.-style model would leave us more fragmented, more dependent on foreign media, and less connected to our own stories.
Poilievre has pledged to go after two of Canada’s most important symbols: our Charter and our public broadcaster.
Even if he had the best economic plan ever, I still could not vote for the CPC.
I don’t support Trudeau either, but like any leader, his record is a mix of good and bad.
This is what Poilievre calls the “Lost Liberal Decade”
• Greatest reduction in poverty rate ever experienced
• Re-funded science after Harper cuts
• Un-muzzled scientists after Harper restrictions
• Established Canada Child Benefit
• Launched national $10/day child care
• Legalized medical assistance in dying
• Legalized recreational cannabis
• Negotiated CUSMA trade deal
• Ended 132 drinking water advisories on reserves
• Enacted the Canadian Dental Care Plan
• Introduced national pharmacare framework
• Lowered the small business tax rate
• Lowered middle class income tax rate
• Increased income tax for the wealthiest 1%
• Established a national suicide prevention hotline
• Implemented the Parental Sharing Benefit
• Passed the Accessible Canada Act
• Provided critical COVID-19 relief
The list goes on. There were accomplishments (and disappointments) and in the longer view people will disagree on the success of the decade. However, Trudeau came in with the bogus and divisive “Canada is Back” BS and left a lot of people out of ‘his Canada.’ That was a huge mistake. Poilievre is poised to do the same thing in the other direction.
I’m going to go up the middle. We don’t know what anyone will actually do when they’re in control but the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Carney has a pretty good record in areas highly relevant to the task of being PM. Neither of them have directly relevant experience but Carney’s list of achievements are much more impressive. More importantly, he occupies that middle space that is most likely to bring Canadian’s together. That’s what I’m looking for and I would be happy to never hear of Poilievre or Trudeau again.
Bill, I appreciate you sharing your thought-out position on voting, even while I disagree with most of it.
Most of the items you list as Liberal “accomplishments” are items I would argue as further reasons to NOT vote for them - based seemingly on differing political philosophy and role of government, differing worldviews and perhaps some on interpretation of whether they are beneficial or net harmful policies.
I label the past ten years of Liberal rule as horribly damaging and harmful, as I’ve laid out. And how any desire for more of the same continues to befuddle me.
Do I wish Poilievre had taken a different turn of tone earlier in the process – yes, as I’ve noted in my writings. But to vote for a return to our serial abuser, of proven terrible record, promises of more of the same and an even greater autocratic tendency because of that – simply doesn’t compute for me in any way.
As for your two main reasons – Notwithstanding Clause and CBC.
BTW - the vast majority of Canadians have nary a clue what the Notwithstanding Clause is, so most have little leg to stand on its judgement.
I would also propose, as I believe partly covered in the article, that affronts to our Constitution and democracy range far wider than the potential use of this clause, and the Liberals have torn at willfully over the past ten years.
As for the CBC, I have not agreed with Poilievre’s press to fully defund the CBC. But to not acknowledge CBC have been heavily favourable to the Liberal party and propagated a social-liberal and anti-conservative/Conservative mindset over the years is beyond defense. That they have attempted additional balance over the last while is worth noting, but their long history is stark and extreme. As for the Liberal plan to double down on them, plus the broader funding landscape of legacy media including the blatant near-bribes of media in the past months just before an election – all point to a media landscape in need of major change. And I don’t see how maintaining a state-funded gorilla like CBC in the middle of that allow any of it to happen. Peter Menzies covers this area quite nicely on Substack.
Voting for Conservatives is "emotional"?? Really? Voting Liberal is as "emotional" as you can get. Case in point -an unelected, Oxford grad and banker asked to chair our government on his CV alone is as "going with my gut" emotional as can be. We've seen and heard Poilievre for 4-6 years depending on your retirement status and I for one,( boomer) like his firmness and conviction. Too long the question has been if our leaders will march in a Pride Parade, not will my grocery bill go through the stratosphere this month? Both are important but the Conservative in me wants my grocery bills not putting me in a shelter. Poilievre has stated everyone is welcome in his house but criminals and haters stay clear. I vote Conservative.
Yeah. Probably not that far apart on a lot of things. I strongly disagree with the labeling of the lost decade. But then I do generally respond negatively when I hear what sounds to me like partisan rhetoric. The "accomplishments" list is a copy paste from a partisan’s post (which i perused to ensure they seemed reasonably accurate). But by many objective measures Canada has done well in relation to the rest if the world. And some of the things counted as irrefutable negatives, we'll they can be refuted. Labelling it as ‘all bad’ seems unfair, and perhaps a bit detached from the real world.
As for autocracy. Trudeau definitely centralized authority but mostly in relation to communication. I would argue (and cite evidence if pressed) that Harper did more (and I supported Harper at one time). His centralization of power related more to the administration of government, not just communication.
On the Charter, I agree most do not understand the notwithstanding clause. However, they get the gist of the Charter and value it highly. I think it's reasonable to assume they do not support overriding it to implement laws that weaken the independence of the judiciary. That single move may be the most truly authoritarian thing we can point to.
Lastly, I'd respectfully suggest that if you can't fathom how anyone could vote Liberal, that is a que to get curious. One thing your commenst suggest you may be missing is that many people do not believe that Trudeau was all bad and/or that Carney = Trudeau. Clearly there's more to it but at an over simplified high level that appears to be an important element.
Gotta say, I feel pretty good about my level of curiosity, analysis, reading, exploration and writing - so unlikely I'll pin my befuddlement at Liberal voting on that.
Vision, policy and results matter to me and I have disagreed with this government on all three for years now, with results speaking loudly.
If the Liberals get back in power they will have an enormous amount of work to do, to earn my respect - which will be measured in policy and tone, even while knowing we will never fully align. At present, I hold NO respect for the Liberal party, the MPs who have run this gauntlet of awfulness, or the PMO running things - given what they've done to our country for ten years.
Being pragmatic would be voting for the NDP if both the liberals and Tories are this awful. Then again the Greens would be more viable given their lack of baggage as everyone noted
Bill, What are your thoughts on Carney’s net zero plans? He's indicated that an expenditure of 2 trillion is required and the emissions cap for Canada’s hydrocarbon industry will remain in place. This is a huge issue for where I live and for Canada as a whole.
Well, I don’t have the depth to speak with authority on this—but that rarely stops me. I’ll share my impression. I’m actually optimistic about much of Carney’s plan. Even if we only achieve most of the aims, it could still position Canada well for the future.
The $2 trillion investment target is ambitious, and we’re already falling behind. We should be seeing $50 billion or more annually by now, but from what I’ve read, we’re still in the $15–20 billion range. To have any hope of catching up, the federal government needs to get key policies and programs in place quickly to support that level of investment.
We also need a robust, adaptable transition plan—ideally one built on broad consensus. Some of the biggest variables, like global demand, are beyond our control. Another major factor is coordination across levels of government and with First Nations. If, for example, the Alberta government refuses to participate and fights every step, the plan could be dead in the water.
Employment is another wildcard. Clean energy jobs are typically safer and offer a better work-life balance, but they currently pay less. The gap is narrowing, but I doubt they’ll ever reach full parity—danger, remoteness, and harsh conditions will always command a premium.
There’s a lot to unpack in the net-zero plan, and I can get lost in the details. That said, Carney has real credibility on this file, and I think his approach is grounded in both climate science and economic pragmatism. So, I’m optimistic.
What are your thoughts on it so far? Does it worry you?
The first questions to ask are whether the Net Zero movement is proportional to the projected problem, how much we truly know versus are just modeling out, whether actions and their timing are reasonable particularly when measured against the opportunity cost, and what's been the movement's success after 10 years. I did a full analysis on NZ last year found here.
Once you establish a position on whether the Net Zero movement is even reasonably correct, proportional, not detracting from more important focus areas and whether having any effect - then you can analyze carbon taxation schemes if you believe it is a correct response.
That’s a very hard question to answer. We have a great deal of uncertainty about the problem and, I’d say, quite a bit of uncertainty around what we’re actually going to do about. I only got as far as your link… clicked on it, read your “Is Net Zero Mostly Wrong” and ended up writing a lengthy reply that I made into my own post (linking to yours). I’m hoping to get back to read your analysis on Carney’s plan.
You, like Carney, seem convinced that Canada must transition away from fossil fuels to help prevent global warming. As that will inflict damage on Canada's economy in general, and very significant damage to my part of the country, it's important to consider what that sacrifice to our living standards will achieve. Using generally accepted U.N. modeling, the temperature impact of Carney’s net zero plans for Canada were shown in a National Post article about a week ago. The result is .018 degrees C of curtailed warming by the year 2100. I believe Canada should devote its economic capital towards initiatives that will enhance our standard of living and have a more positive effect on the world at large. Things like meeting our NATO commitments, improving our access to health care, closing the productivity gap with the U.S. and the rest of the world etc. Canada is a cold country more dependent on energy than most due to the vast distances we must traverse between population centers. Fortunately we're blessed with the worlds third largest oil&gas reserves which is a product world needs and constitutes our most profitable industry. For me this more than anything else is why the Liberals should not continue to rule.
I just want to add that although I disagree with your take on this I appreciate you engaging and describing in detail why you feel the way you do. Given what's at stake for Alberta, it's extremely important that those of us who will most be harmed take the time to communicate respectfully with those who support the direction Carney will likely take the country.
One important issue that has been left out of all of the above is Trudeau’s corruption. Paid biased holidays, “Jody Wilson-Raybould” and the many other incidents that made him so unliked. I know I know I know hes gone but the individuals who conspired with him to cover up and lie about all of his issues are still there. They were compliant and conspiring to bury the truth. for 10 years. They had the ability to walk away from him sit as an independent or whatever. If as few as five members had used their morals and showed a little wee wee bit of backbone they could have started the landslide of opposition that would have forced the never ready corrupt shyster out. Then they could have saved Canadians five years and more of governance that only had one purpose and that was to retain power. Every Liberal down to the lowest back bench member were a group of immoral power hungry losers. Take your so called public service change it to private service and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Please voters remember this when you vote. You are not voting for change by voting liberal as Carny is not change he is the hand picked continuation of the same old same old.
I see your posts in the National Post's comment space occasionally but have you considered sending this excellent summary as either an article or a letter to the Globe and Mail? It might have more potential to reach swing voters in that space.
I have sent a few of my more policy oriented deep dive pieces to several pubs in the past - but just crickets. So I don't bother trying further and am happy to write here on my own channel for those who find me.
I will be sending this out to a large number of contacts and urging them to do likewise. May many wise and discerning minds decide to exercise their democratic freedom, won and maintained by hundreds of thousands who sacrificed their lives.
Dedicated to the lives of the many who fought for our freedom that the present government disparages.
Thanks for a critical thinker's resource of critical information on the dire state of the Canadian Nation, courtesy of the Criminal Liberal Gang in Ottawa over the last 10 years.
The mental malaise of the Canadian Electorate over the criminal state of our federal government of the last 10 years is frightening. Much blame can be attributed to a lying and deceptive legacy media, spawned by a liberal government's bribery funding. The new 'Pravda' comrades.
An article with all the succinct points Pragmatic Canadian. Remember how the Liberals (although a minority g'ment) won the last election through FEAR. Fear of covid and the unvaccinated. This time around they are using the FEAR of President Trump and becoming the 51st state. The blinders the Liberal supporters wear is bewildering. Their memory is short.
They actually should send President Trump a large bouquet of flowers for without him to rag on, Pierre P would still have a slam dunk. If Carney gets in, I think I will cry. If anyone takes the time to read more about him and his "Values", they would know many of the reasons they should steer clear of him but the sheeple in Canada want security and they think he is going to bring it. Such a delusion. God help us.
Let's keep plugging away until election day and see where the chips fall.
Appreciate the comments.
A weekly polling article in The Hub today included a survey from Leger. 60% of those who were planning on voting Liberal identified fear as their major motivation. 75% of those who were planning on voting Conservative identified hope for the future as their primary driver. I think that sums up this election in a nutshell.
Thanks, Gord.
Fully agree and I will repost as much as I can. Two points to add:
1) There is an article by Mark Carney pushing for squashing the Truckers' protest in Ottawa. Canadians should read it to understand what Carney stands for.
2) Worse than a Liberal majority would be a Liberal minority with the support of BQ and/or NDP.
Thank you, Paul. Keep spreading the word and maybe we'll squeak through this.
Great article. I wish that all Canadians could read this before heading to the polls.
Thanks, Bill.
Very powerful! Thank you! Unfortunately I'm not the one who needed to see it.
Perfectly said. I look at my fellow aging baby boomers and I just don’t understand how they aren’t seeing this. How clearer could you have stated this???
I remain boggled as well, Sandra.
Frankly, I'm beyond attempting to understand the voting cohort and will hopefully return to writing again more of policy when this election mercifully concludes. At least policy analysis is something I can wrap my head around. People, however, are increasingly evading my comprehension.
Thanks for your comment.
Thx. My sister is 77 and I’m 76. We both have baby boomer friends/ neighbours who held professional jobs. They are all voting Liberal because they fear PP being a mini-Trump. Two had government pensions maybe that’s part of it. One won’t even forward Jordan Peterson’s video to her daughter-in-law that I suggested. Peterson analyzed Carney’s
qualifications to be PM and came up with a No vote. You may have watched it. I’m not always a fan of Peterson but I think he nailed our concerns about Carney. My friend wouldn’t forward it because the DIL supported the truckers movement and IMG will be voting Conservative and she didn’t want to concern herself with her DIL sharing her views on supporting what JP said. ( I’m not qualified to judge the trucker protest as I found it very confusing with a changing scope/agenda/ too many voices).
I am not voting for Poilievre. He has built his support through personal attacks and misleading claims over many years. Most of his backers seem driven by emotion. He and Trudeau have both used division as a political tool, and I want no more of either approach.
In away it’s a shame, because I actually agree with much of the Conservative platform. But there are two dealbreakers for me.
First, I cannot support his plan to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His proposal to take away judicial discretion, using the notwithstanding clause, is not just unconstitutional—it’s dangerous. This clause has never been used by a federal government, and for good reason. Most Canadians see the Charter—along with the flag—as a core symbol of our identity. That kind of power should only be used in rare, urgent cases of national importance. The issue Poilievre is targeting does not meet that bar, and many Canadians don’t support his solution. Giving any prime minister the power to override our Constitution with just 40% of the vote opens the door to real authoritarianism—not the kind people like to imagine, but the kind that slowly becomes real.
Second, I can’t support his plan to gut the CBC. Every developed country in the world—except the U.S.—has a public broadcaster. Canada actually spends less than most. Yes, CBC news reporting leans left, like many public broadcasters and half the media landscape. But Poilievre calling it a Liberal mouthpiece isn’t true, and I believe he knows that. CBC has broken several stories that were damaging to the Liberals and has covered them all. It operates under a legal mandate and independent structure, and it’s a respected source worldwide—often cited by Poilievre himself, and even advertised on by the CPC. I think they should get out of the opinions and sports business. We do not need that from a public broadcaster but we do need the CBC. It is a critical part of the fabric of Canada.
In fact, you could argue that Canada needs a public broadcaster more than almost any other country. We’re large and spread out, with a small, English-speaking population next to the biggest media exporter in the world. The CBC helps us understand our country, our communities, and each other. Replacing it with a commercial U.S.-style model would leave us more fragmented, more dependent on foreign media, and less connected to our own stories.
Poilievre has pledged to go after two of Canada’s most important symbols: our Charter and our public broadcaster.
Even if he had the best economic plan ever, I still could not vote for the CPC.
I don’t support Trudeau either, but like any leader, his record is a mix of good and bad.
This is what Poilievre calls the “Lost Liberal Decade”
• Greatest reduction in poverty rate ever experienced
• Re-funded science after Harper cuts
• Un-muzzled scientists after Harper restrictions
• Established Canada Child Benefit
• Launched national $10/day child care
• Legalized medical assistance in dying
• Legalized recreational cannabis
• Negotiated CUSMA trade deal
• Ended 132 drinking water advisories on reserves
• Enacted the Canadian Dental Care Plan
• Introduced national pharmacare framework
• Lowered the small business tax rate
• Lowered middle class income tax rate
• Increased income tax for the wealthiest 1%
• Established a national suicide prevention hotline
• Implemented the Parental Sharing Benefit
• Passed the Accessible Canada Act
• Provided critical COVID-19 relief
The list goes on. There were accomplishments (and disappointments) and in the longer view people will disagree on the success of the decade. However, Trudeau came in with the bogus and divisive “Canada is Back” BS and left a lot of people out of ‘his Canada.’ That was a huge mistake. Poilievre is poised to do the same thing in the other direction.
I’m going to go up the middle. We don’t know what anyone will actually do when they’re in control but the best indicator of future performance is past performance. Carney has a pretty good record in areas highly relevant to the task of being PM. Neither of them have directly relevant experience but Carney’s list of achievements are much more impressive. More importantly, he occupies that middle space that is most likely to bring Canadian’s together. That’s what I’m looking for and I would be happy to never hear of Poilievre or Trudeau again.
Bill, I appreciate you sharing your thought-out position on voting, even while I disagree with most of it.
Most of the items you list as Liberal “accomplishments” are items I would argue as further reasons to NOT vote for them - based seemingly on differing political philosophy and role of government, differing worldviews and perhaps some on interpretation of whether they are beneficial or net harmful policies.
I label the past ten years of Liberal rule as horribly damaging and harmful, as I’ve laid out. And how any desire for more of the same continues to befuddle me.
Do I wish Poilievre had taken a different turn of tone earlier in the process – yes, as I’ve noted in my writings. But to vote for a return to our serial abuser, of proven terrible record, promises of more of the same and an even greater autocratic tendency because of that – simply doesn’t compute for me in any way.
As for your two main reasons – Notwithstanding Clause and CBC.
I wrote a piece on Notwithstanding last year you may find interesting. I do not stand firmly against never using it federally. https://pragmaticcanadian.substack.com/p/notwithstanding-a-fracturing-confederation?r=2l9qgc
BTW - the vast majority of Canadians have nary a clue what the Notwithstanding Clause is, so most have little leg to stand on its judgement.
I would also propose, as I believe partly covered in the article, that affronts to our Constitution and democracy range far wider than the potential use of this clause, and the Liberals have torn at willfully over the past ten years.
As for the CBC, I have not agreed with Poilievre’s press to fully defund the CBC. But to not acknowledge CBC have been heavily favourable to the Liberal party and propagated a social-liberal and anti-conservative/Conservative mindset over the years is beyond defense. That they have attempted additional balance over the last while is worth noting, but their long history is stark and extreme. As for the Liberal plan to double down on them, plus the broader funding landscape of legacy media including the blatant near-bribes of media in the past months just before an election – all point to a media landscape in need of major change. And I don’t see how maintaining a state-funded gorilla like CBC in the middle of that allow any of it to happen. Peter Menzies covers this area quite nicely on Substack.
Voting for Conservatives is "emotional"?? Really? Voting Liberal is as "emotional" as you can get. Case in point -an unelected, Oxford grad and banker asked to chair our government on his CV alone is as "going with my gut" emotional as can be. We've seen and heard Poilievre for 4-6 years depending on your retirement status and I for one,( boomer) like his firmness and conviction. Too long the question has been if our leaders will march in a Pride Parade, not will my grocery bill go through the stratosphere this month? Both are important but the Conservative in me wants my grocery bills not putting me in a shelter. Poilievre has stated everyone is welcome in his house but criminals and haters stay clear. I vote Conservative.
Nicely put, Susan. And agreed.
Yeah. Probably not that far apart on a lot of things. I strongly disagree with the labeling of the lost decade. But then I do generally respond negatively when I hear what sounds to me like partisan rhetoric. The "accomplishments" list is a copy paste from a partisan’s post (which i perused to ensure they seemed reasonably accurate). But by many objective measures Canada has done well in relation to the rest if the world. And some of the things counted as irrefutable negatives, we'll they can be refuted. Labelling it as ‘all bad’ seems unfair, and perhaps a bit detached from the real world.
As for autocracy. Trudeau definitely centralized authority but mostly in relation to communication. I would argue (and cite evidence if pressed) that Harper did more (and I supported Harper at one time). His centralization of power related more to the administration of government, not just communication.
On the Charter, I agree most do not understand the notwithstanding clause. However, they get the gist of the Charter and value it highly. I think it's reasonable to assume they do not support overriding it to implement laws that weaken the independence of the judiciary. That single move may be the most truly authoritarian thing we can point to.
Lastly, I'd respectfully suggest that if you can't fathom how anyone could vote Liberal, that is a que to get curious. One thing your commenst suggest you may be missing is that many people do not believe that Trudeau was all bad and/or that Carney = Trudeau. Clearly there's more to it but at an over simplified high level that appears to be an important element.
Gotta say, I feel pretty good about my level of curiosity, analysis, reading, exploration and writing - so unlikely I'll pin my befuddlement at Liberal voting on that.
Vision, policy and results matter to me and I have disagreed with this government on all three for years now, with results speaking loudly.
If the Liberals get back in power they will have an enormous amount of work to do, to earn my respect - which will be measured in policy and tone, even while knowing we will never fully align. At present, I hold NO respect for the Liberal party, the MPs who have run this gauntlet of awfulness, or the PMO running things - given what they've done to our country for ten years.
I agree.
Well, there are things that I don’t understand that I’m not curious about either. As is our right.
Being pragmatic would be voting for the NDP if both the liberals and Tories are this awful. Then again the Greens would be more viable given their lack of baggage as everyone noted
Bill, What are your thoughts on Carney’s net zero plans? He's indicated that an expenditure of 2 trillion is required and the emissions cap for Canada’s hydrocarbon industry will remain in place. This is a huge issue for where I live and for Canada as a whole.
Well, I don’t have the depth to speak with authority on this—but that rarely stops me. I’ll share my impression. I’m actually optimistic about much of Carney’s plan. Even if we only achieve most of the aims, it could still position Canada well for the future.
The $2 trillion investment target is ambitious, and we’re already falling behind. We should be seeing $50 billion or more annually by now, but from what I’ve read, we’re still in the $15–20 billion range. To have any hope of catching up, the federal government needs to get key policies and programs in place quickly to support that level of investment.
We also need a robust, adaptable transition plan—ideally one built on broad consensus. Some of the biggest variables, like global demand, are beyond our control. Another major factor is coordination across levels of government and with First Nations. If, for example, the Alberta government refuses to participate and fights every step, the plan could be dead in the water.
Employment is another wildcard. Clean energy jobs are typically safer and offer a better work-life balance, but they currently pay less. The gap is narrowing, but I doubt they’ll ever reach full parity—danger, remoteness, and harsh conditions will always command a premium.
There’s a lot to unpack in the net-zero plan, and I can get lost in the details. That said, Carney has real credibility on this file, and I think his approach is grounded in both climate science and economic pragmatism. So, I’m optimistic.
What are your thoughts on it so far? Does it worry you?
The first questions to ask are whether the Net Zero movement is proportional to the projected problem, how much we truly know versus are just modeling out, whether actions and their timing are reasonable particularly when measured against the opportunity cost, and what's been the movement's success after 10 years. I did a full analysis on NZ last year found here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/pragmaticcanadian/p/is-net-zero-mostly-wrong?r=2l9qgc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Once you establish a position on whether the Net Zero movement is even reasonably correct, proportional, not detracting from more important focus areas and whether having any effect - then you can analyze carbon taxation schemes if you believe it is a correct response.
I did an analysis on Carney's plan here.
https://pragmaticcanadian.substack.com/p/carneys-carbon-tax-head-fake?r=2l9qgc
That’s a very hard question to answer. We have a great deal of uncertainty about the problem and, I’d say, quite a bit of uncertainty around what we’re actually going to do about. I only got as far as your link… clicked on it, read your “Is Net Zero Mostly Wrong” and ended up writing a lengthy reply that I made into my own post (linking to yours). I’m hoping to get back to read your analysis on Carney’s plan.
https://billmacgougan.substack.com/p/a-reply-to-is-net-zero-mostly-wrong?utm_source=substack&utm_content=feed%3Arecommended%3Acopy_link
You, like Carney, seem convinced that Canada must transition away from fossil fuels to help prevent global warming. As that will inflict damage on Canada's economy in general, and very significant damage to my part of the country, it's important to consider what that sacrifice to our living standards will achieve. Using generally accepted U.N. modeling, the temperature impact of Carney’s net zero plans for Canada were shown in a National Post article about a week ago. The result is .018 degrees C of curtailed warming by the year 2100. I believe Canada should devote its economic capital towards initiatives that will enhance our standard of living and have a more positive effect on the world at large. Things like meeting our NATO commitments, improving our access to health care, closing the productivity gap with the U.S. and the rest of the world etc. Canada is a cold country more dependent on energy than most due to the vast distances we must traverse between population centers. Fortunately we're blessed with the worlds third largest oil&gas reserves which is a product world needs and constitutes our most profitable industry. For me this more than anything else is why the Liberals should not continue to rule.
I just want to add that although I disagree with your take on this I appreciate you engaging and describing in detail why you feel the way you do. Given what's at stake for Alberta, it's extremely important that those of us who will most be harmed take the time to communicate respectfully with those who support the direction Carney will likely take the country.
Sounds more principled than pragmatic (as you may be picking up I’m a bit of pedantic contrarian).
One important issue that has been left out of all of the above is Trudeau’s corruption. Paid biased holidays, “Jody Wilson-Raybould” and the many other incidents that made him so unliked. I know I know I know hes gone but the individuals who conspired with him to cover up and lie about all of his issues are still there. They were compliant and conspiring to bury the truth. for 10 years. They had the ability to walk away from him sit as an independent or whatever. If as few as five members had used their morals and showed a little wee wee bit of backbone they could have started the landslide of opposition that would have forced the never ready corrupt shyster out. Then they could have saved Canadians five years and more of governance that only had one purpose and that was to retain power. Every Liberal down to the lowest back bench member were a group of immoral power hungry losers. Take your so called public service change it to private service and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Please voters remember this when you vote. You are not voting for change by voting liberal as Carny is not change he is the hand picked continuation of the same old same old.
I see your posts in the National Post's comment space occasionally but have you considered sending this excellent summary as either an article or a letter to the Globe and Mail? It might have more potential to reach swing voters in that space.
I have sent a few of my more policy oriented deep dive pieces to several pubs in the past - but just crickets. So I don't bother trying further and am happy to write here on my own channel for those who find me.
Thanks for your readership.
I will be sending this out to a large number of contacts and urging them to do likewise. May many wise and discerning minds decide to exercise their democratic freedom, won and maintained by hundreds of thousands who sacrificed their lives.
Dedicated to the lives of the many who fought for our freedom that the present government disparages.
Thanks for a critical thinker's resource of critical information on the dire state of the Canadian Nation, courtesy of the Criminal Liberal Gang in Ottawa over the last 10 years.
The mental malaise of the Canadian Electorate over the criminal state of our federal government of the last 10 years is frightening. Much blame can be attributed to a lying and deceptive legacy media, spawned by a liberal government's bribery funding. The new 'Pravda' comrades.
Liberals are WEF disciples.
A vote for them is a vote for the great replacement.