Investment Canada Conference This Week

Call it speed dating for investment. The two day summit brings investment banks, pension and sovereign funds to look at prospectus lists of projects across Canada that the government has said they are looking to push through with fewer obstacles than have existed for about a decade. In the past year Canada has led foreign investment in the G7. Both Mark Carney and Stephen Harper will be in attendance for the event and giving speeches as well as meeting with delegates.

Unlike when Chretien, Martin and Harper led Team Canada business travels around the world to sell Canadian goods and seek out investment in places across Asia primarily, this is inviting the business rather than just the political meet ups where we might be just looking to open up the tourist doors or seek out international students. This is cash and investment in multi-year projects.

Every province and territory has selected projects that are high up on their priorities but can't just be funded by government money. It was only a few years past when German leaders came to Canada pretty much begging to invest in LNG to breakaway from Russian energy. Trudeau said nope. Said there wasn't a market for it and along with some in his cabinet, had the attitude of "keep it in the ground."

There were exceptions to this when private money dried up and anger boiled to the surface, especially in Alberta, that Trans-Mountain was built with federal government money. It hasn't quelled some in Alberta of anger but it is noteworthy that the pipeline to the coast brings in more money than the pipelines to the states. It is also worth commenting that it is the United States which has been the biggest obstacle to pipelines south over 12 years. Regardless, Canada was turning away investment or slow walking decisions that easily could run a decade or more.

It wasn't the only government doing this. Provincial and municipal governments literally stalled work on roads, highways, housing and hospitals. Things were literally falling apart and risk adverse governments and civil service often acted like this is just the way it was. Many had pet projects that came ahead of other crumbling infrastructure. In Winnipeg that would Kenaston and Peguis road expansion over sewer treatment. Every lower level government believed the federal fairy godmother would hand cash over so they could build new infrastructure.

To be sure the Feds have committed money to provinces and cities but they are pushing those governments to commit to bringing forward projects that outside investors will sign up for. In the case of Manitoba, that would be the Port of Churchill expansion. There is not an area of the province this wouldn't help. As for Winnipeg, the biggest areas for international investors have to be the airport and Centreport. Ottawa seems confident that some memorandums and announcements are coming in the next days. To be sure the Churchill investment might be the biggest of the bunch if it comes.

There have been some critics but it is getting harder to separate the cranks from legitimate critical thinkers. Not to mention who in the commentariat that actually be a paid disturber from third parties trying to sow discontent in society. Actual agents. In other words, people you might not be able to trust under any circumstances. During this investment conference, I will be looking to a variety of notable opinions. What I will be looking at is the creation of new businesses, investments in big projects and less takeovers by large corporations. We really don't need startups in Canada being folded up into the U.S. and literally shut down here. I also don't want to investment solely to try and enter the U.S. market as a back door for supply chain elsewhere. I'm also not interested in seeing a lithium mine here open where all the product is owned and shipped out of Canada.

It will be interesting to see what happens and in some cases, announcements may be pending in the days and months that follow. This isn't the only part of Canada's economy strategy. Canada has recruited academic stars, many from the U.S., who come to the country because of funding and freedom to do their work. Military and infrastructure projects abound. Most provinces have generational investments being planned or in progress. And a lot of cities of transportation and road and sewer projects. All of this can lead to bond investments. They can't all be done on taxes at once.

Some union and labour protestors will be present railing against capitalism. Some of them seem to forget that the car industry depends on investment. While some have legitimate concerns, the issue is they don't often bring any plans to the fore except government spending which is unsustainable. So often this turns into heavy taxation and state planning. It is notable that Wab Kinew is part of initiative with Carney to bring investment. There simply isn't enough tax money to do a project like Churchill without investment coming in.

It is probably good to take a measured approach to this conference. The merits of any announcements will be a good exercise in assessing the good overall or the bad as well. What shouldn't happen is outright dismissal or demands to see the entire details even before the day has started. That is just posturing and we are seeing a lot of that from lobbyists, influencers and those seeking to harm Canada.

Sun Publisher Meets U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra

Heather Klein, Pete Hoekstra and Kevin Klein attend 4th of July party at Ambassador's residence 2026.

In an opinion piece Kevin Klein says he accepted an invitation from U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra for the Independence Day ceremony at the ambassador's residence in Ottawa. Around 200 people were there, including Convoy leader, Tamara Lich. A fly by of CF-18s and F-35s took place.

Klein says the mainstream media makes out the Hoekstra is making a villain of the ambassador. He says he is a hard working diplomat and Carney is to blame. This puts Klein on far opposite of his own Conservative operators who are livid with the gaslighting by Hoekstra on the Gordie Howe Bridge when he said Canada has not really paid for it. Many Stephen Harper officials who were in the room are thoroughly disgusted. Not one of them blamed Carney for this as this a shakedown 101.

Now Klein has managed to save the Winnipeg Sun and other newspapers from certain closure and has a right to publish whatever he wants. It is right to believe that if only there was a Conservative in power, all would be well over the last 10 years and we'd never have a trade issue with the U.S. or Trump. He can believe that but no county has been unscathed in Trump's second administration. The only safety we've had in a trade agreement signed when Justin Trudeau was prime minister. 

Klein said he asked many of the 250 business leaders in attendance and they said Carney doesn't engage them. He said Hoekstra engaged them. Of the under 1000 in attendance, there are certain to be a number of businesses that are not happy with Carney. Conservatives should keep in mind that these past 4th parties used to attract 4000 people. Many businesses felt they could do better attending the Calgary Stampede. So did many politicians. Some are so furious about the bridge in Ontario, they hold Hoekstra accountable directly. The former Michigan Congressman received donations from the Ambassador Bridge owners and there seems to be a direct link to closure of the Gordie Howe Bridge.

Now Klein accepting the invitation to the party could be explained as seeking information on a major issue. But where is the accountability? Does Klein contend that it is all Carney's fault that there is no deal and the bridge is closed? It seems that is what his newspaper claims every day. The Sun writers seem to think that all we do is irritate the U.S. and it would be so easy to get a deal. 

Canadian irritation right back is not merely driven by media in Canada. It is actually greater than the Carney government. People in the country recognize the bullying and even some of the biggest conservatives are fighting mad. For some other Conservatives, they are far more supportive of Trump and even like his kind of politics. There is a fair movement in Canada that are not just separatists but angling for 51st state status.

Conservative media will have to dance on the head of a pin with separation in next months. They would continue to to like to berate the federal government. In many cases they are upset with conservatives elsewhere too. In Manitoba, that is translating into a new party. Since one of the owners Wally Daudrich is running in The Pas for the Keystone Party. It remains to be see whether The Sun endorses him and the party.

Pete Hoekstra is not helpful navigating the next moves Canada will take. He mirrors what Trump says gaslights us when we bristle at being told we need to be 51st state. The gaslighting continues when we are told we didn't pay for the Gordie Howe Bridge. Conservative media agreeing it is all the Liberals fault and Carney in particular only beggars disbelief and raises Carney's popularity. 

I appreciate Klein's purchase of The Sun. We need two newspapers in this town. They don't have to be identical. It is better that they aren't. But we need Team Canada when it comes to the U.S. whether in sport or politics. There is nothing wrong with going to the ambassador's fete. Coming out of it and saying he is doing yeoman's work and he is listening while Carney isn't is not helpful. What might have been helpful is finding out what truly was holding up the bridge opening. Do we really have to give envelopes of cash to the main players? Is it a warning we need to capitulate on everything, accept tariffs, the end of dairy, egg, chicken and cheese industry, our auto industry, buy only American equipment for military, join the U.S. in a fight in Iran, end newspaper and cultural supports, get approval for anyone we trade with, send oil only to the U.S. at a discount and any other things that might result in a deal that Trump changes month to month? This is the work of a diplomat? And this is all Carney's fault?

Royce Koop Seeking Conservative Nomination in Winnipeg South Centre

 

University of Manitoba professor and Winnipeg Sun columnist has indicated he will be seeking the nomination for the Conservatives for Winnipeg South Centre. The riding is presently held by the Liberal under Ben Carr, son of the last Jim Carr, former MLA and MP from the area. Carr was recently re-elected in 2025. The riding has been one of the most consistent federal Liberal riding for nearly five decades. The next election is, at best, three years away now the Mark Carney has a majority.

By all accounts, Koop has been a well liked professor at University of Manitoba. He has degrees from all over Canada and has taught at many Canadian  universities. When he wrote at the Free Press, there was insightful analysis. His columns in The Sun and sometimes National Post are all opinion pieces. His focus pretty much all the time is the Liberal party and why it is bad for Canada. He also writes for the conservative digital news service call The Hub. Just this week, Conrad Black, a frequent contributor said Trump is a good president and his name in the Epstein Files is irrelevant.

Koop is known as a fairly partisan conservative. His Sun columns and podcasts with Kevin Klein have been focused against the NDP in Manitoba and the Liberals in Ottawa. As an academic he is well aware of the micro and macro of the political economy. He knows how the Westminster system works. He is well aware of the ideology of every political party in the country. Knowing all this, his political opinion of things overlooks the failures of his own party and focuses on the failures of the other guys.

It it is unclear if there is competition for the nomination for the federal riding. The last candidate for the Conservatives in the riding was Royden Brosseau, an engineer and businessman, who hasn't indicated that they will run again. Joyce Bateman won for the Tories in 2011 but lost to Jim Carr the following election. It has been a very Liberal since the 1980s even through many Conservative governments.

The Conservatives have felt this riding, with a mix of wealth and high education, has been ripe for the plucking for decades but have continually come up short. And by a long ways most of the time. And some of the right who campaigned in the riding have often shown a level of racism and anti-Semitism dating back to the Reform party. Given the  Jewish strength in the riding, conservatives often think they take the the seat. But that assumes a monolithic viewpoint of Jewish Canadian votes. It dismisses Jewish roots in a spectrum of views rather than single issue politics.

Royce Koop will likely face challengers for the nomination which is might might fight off being more right of center. He will then have to show the riding he can represent all the people that live there. There are many government workers, artists and small business people who live in the riding. Many will be ever alert to threats to health, education and and areas they feel passionate about.

The lesson learned from Pierre Poilievre's defeat in his own riding is that many people in the Ottawa area were afraid of slash and burn policies that could affect their jobs and workplaces. It is possible that if Trudeau had still been in power in 2025 in the election, even Winnipeg South Centre would have turned blue. However, the Liberals turned to Carney and the Trump changed the election into an existential threat. That threat still hangs over Canada.

I suppose the benefit of Koop getting the nomination early is that he can get a feel of the riding. You can bet they will be reading his columns, watching podcasts and so will his opposition. If Carney nose dives in the polls, it is possible this seat can turn over. But it is likely it will only be a narrow window and the community will be watching like hawks the whole time.

Artemis Moon Mission

Going to space changes how astronauts think about the earth. They advocate for the well being of the planet and the people on it. It is hard not to feel the awesomeness of seeing everyone and every thing from space. The picture above is from the Artemis mission.

The Artemis rocket is transporting three Americans and one Canadian to the farthest point behind the moon that any human has gone before. The figure eight trip around the Earth and the Moon is a test run. If all goes well, the same astronauts will be in line to be the first humans on the moon since 1972. The twelve Americans from the Apollo missions 1969 to 1972 are the only astronauts to walk on the moon surface. Since that time, all human activity in space has been confined to low earth orbit.

Canada and the U.S. have been long time friends and allies in space. Even the Apollo mission relied on landing gear and communications as well as numerous engineers for its success. Canada was the third country in the world to put satellites in orbit.

To get our seat on Artemis, Canada was to build Canadarm3 for the station that was to orbit the moon. The cost was about $1 billion. However, the Lunar Gateway Mission has now been cancelled so Canada gets the seats to the moon and no Canadarm3 will be built. The adaptation to moon use is already being contemplated and certainly the future Mars mission is expected to include a robotic arm. Trudeau was able to get the agreement back in Trump's first term and Carney has committed to the space program in Trump's second term.

As with all things on a spaceflight, you sometimes have a "Houston, we have a problem moment." In this case, it is the toilet. Hope they figure this one out. It wasn't built in Canada.

Some say the excitement of the mission is blunted by the U.S. fighting in Iran. The criticism is not wrong. Thankfully, the joy and enthusiasm of the astronauts is infectious. As they approach home, the excitement will grow but for those on board, it will be to get down safely and then to go over all the knowledge they've gotten on how to make trips to the moon a regular and safer activity.

We are getting closer to the completion of the moon trip. However, it has captured the imaginations of so many with the amazing pictures of earth and the moon that will be treasured. Saving landing, crew of Artemis!

Harper Nostalgia from Conservatives

The Conservatives have been have been all mushy nostalgic for Stephen Harper this past week during the Calgary convention to affirm Pierre Poilievre as party leader. It is the Conservative convention so they can mush all the want. However, the Conservatives certainly leave out a lot of stuff when they talk about Harper, not the least of which is how he got thumped by Justin Trudeau for a terrible campaign and based on his record. And thereafter, Trudeau beat the new two Conservative leaders. It was the Liberals themselves who replaced Trudeau and thereafter Carney beat yet another Conservative leader in Pierre Poilievre.

The last time the Conservatives held power was back when Harper was Prime Minister. The National Post are been particularly strong in singing the praises of Harper the past weekend crediting him with a golden era in Canadian governance. They are very strong in condemnation of Trudeau. There is plenty to criticize Trudeau about but on things like military spending, Trudeau's government easily surpassed Harper who had .08% GDP spending even while we were in Afghanistan. Trudeau was at 1.3% and Carney is to bring it to 2% by March and head past that to 5%. Somehow the way the conservative media frames it, Harper was superior. He wasn't but they seek to downplay that. 

In terms of deficits, Harper media supporters say it was the result of the 2008 stock and economy crash. They credit Harper for managing the crisis while saying that Carney had nothing to do with it. I expect if Carney didn't help, Harper would not have offered him the job of Finance minister or be so effusive in praise of his job as Bank of Canada governor. It is all such nonsense. Such obvious digs sound just like they are: blindly partisan.

The seeds of most leaders demise show themselves early. The electorate initially appreciates or tolerates it in the early going. Most voters are are not extremists. They tend to vote for their own reasons. Having said that, the seeds of Harper's demise came from the social conservative side and his desire to end collection of data in some quarters. The cancelling the long form census and gagging government departments from reporting stuff not approved by his office was very concerning. The focus on immigrants and what they wore turned off a number of people as well as associating with the extremist side with the cultural barbaric practices hotline. Holy ICE in Canada! For Trudeau, it was the performative side of things. He went to India and was annoying in his costume and family holiday. Serious trade and security issues needed to be talked about and they were outshone by superficial stuff. Eventually, with high cost of living, the charismatic Trudeau looked destined for a thorough defeat.

Usually the leader are blind to their own weakness. And why would they think that anything other than victory was possible. Both Harper and Trudeau clobbered opposition. Liberals are not nostalgic for Trudeau insofar that they want him back. I personally believed that some of his personal foibles would have resulted in loss of position by almost every other Liberal MP if they had committed them. Still, I approved in general the change in cannabis law, the handling of the pandemic and the free trade agreement in Trump's first term. As for the cost of living and handling the crime and drug addictions, I was like many people not very happy.

It has been interesting to note in recent days that Harper and Chretien were on stage together talking about national unity. It is hard to imagine this in the U.S. right now. In fact, both men mentioned the issue of Donald Trump and how the country should come together. It was fairly funny to but it also emphasizes Poilievre's problem. While he can embrace nostalgia for Harper, he is having a hard time being critical because there are so many Trump supporters in his party, some who even welcome being the 51st state.

Based on the way the Conservatives are acting, it is clear they don't want to pull the trigger on an election right away. If the act with bravado and block things, Carney might be compelled to call a snap election and call their bluff. Minorities don't have long. If no more floor crossers join the Liberals, the election could be in 2026. Poilievre is meeting Carney to discuss the session. It doesn't seem likely he would do that if he was going to vote non-confidence in the next month.

In the mean time, conservative media will continue to say what a grand time a Harper conservative government was and say nothing bad ever happened. The relationship between Canada, the U.S. and China was never as good as some on the right have said. Harper never did get a pipeline in Canada or the U.S. either. Trudeau got the one in Canada completed. Harper kept the worst instincts of the party down until he didn't. 

Carney and Chretien were present this week when Stephen Harper had his portrait unveiled in Ottawa on 20th anniversary since he was in office. Peter McKay was present too. But no Poilievre. It was probably not a thing he wanted to show a non-partisanship appearance at. A missed opportunity to grow his base. However, his base in furious and angry. About everything. They want to control the courts and judges. They want to end bilingualism. Go to zero immigration. They will go to extremism if they see the Conservatives give on these issues.

It is hard to believe that the Harper nostalgia doesn't teach anything new to present day Conservatives. They certainly don't seem to be listening to Harper now.

Crossing the Floor - House of Commons

In 2018 Andrew Scheer had no problem with floor crosser when Liberal Leona Allslev joined his party. Now that is Conservatives crossing to the Liberals, you have Conservatives screaming treason and trade offs that are illegal. They're not. Since Confederation, there have been over 300 floor crossings. People elect MPs. If they elect enough of them from one slate, they get official party status and resources from Parliament to do their job. The party that has the most MPs elected gets to attempt to form government, even in a minority situation. This means in a minority, the governing party has to work with MPs across the floor to govern. This includes inducing them to cross the floor to help form a majority.

Justin Trudeau got this when one of his MPs crossed the floor. Scheer crowed about it, said the Liberals were weak and Trudeau should resign. He apparently, didn't see anything wrong with it. As for what it achieved, the election that came soon after resulted in a repeat minority and it was Scheer who had to resign.

It is a but rich to see Andrew Scheer talking about the Liberals meeting with Conservative MPs and calling it anti-Democratic. It is the opposite of that. Some of the media, including people in academia, question the MP how they thwart the choices of people who voted for the party. People elect MPs. Those MPs are expected to vote or act on behalf of all those who live in their riding. That includes people who didn't vote for them or can't yet vote.

Parties can't dictate that people first sit as an independent. It is unenforceable in our system. It also lacks transparency. If a minority government relies on a few MPs to pass their agenda, it is better to know what the trade offs are. In the last government, the NDP and Liberals negotiated to pass an agenda. Unfortunately, for the NDP, it didn't result in seat gain. But it did result them getting things they wanted passed in legislation. It is up to electorate what they want from their MP and who they want. The parties always find this out and trying to force party loyalty on a riding often won't go well.

Conservatives are raw with anger. Perhaps some know that cries of treason are politicking. However, it often seems that some pundits are unware of of how democracy and our system works. Many still can't figure out what Ontario has more MPs than say, Alberta. Perhaps because it has three times the population and also has the biggest economic impact in the country.

It is worth noting that one of the most celebrated leaders in history, Winston Churchill, crossed the floor twice. Many seem to chose to forget that when they list him as a great leader. But then again people choose what they want to choose even when it is contradictory. You would they not get furious when it is pointed out to them. It seems entirely based on whose ox gets gored.

It is very likely that Pierre Poilievre believed that he was going to defeat the Liberals this week and head into an election. Now, he is two MPs short from where he was day earlier. A final budget vote takes place a week from now. It remains to be seen if the bleeding has stopped for the Conservatives. If all the opposition parties vote against the budget, there will indeed be an election and all the hysteria about floor crossing will be mute.

It is interesting to note how rattled Pierre Poilievre was as a result of the two MPs leaving the caucus. He has been acting like he is 30 points ahead in the polls. Perhaps things will be unsettled in Canada till a majority is voted in. It is only then that an opposition party knows that it at least three or four years till the next election and that is a marathon rather than a sprint. If the feeling is that an election is always imminent it seems to encourage dumb behaviour.

As far as social and mainstream media goes, perhaps the angry outbursts is to get clicks or support from the base. Calling people liars in an unsigned document from Conservative party doesn't cut it. Two MPs are gone. They blame the Liberals for this. The big question is whether the Conservatives have enough votes to bring down the government in a confidence vote in a week or whether they even want to do that. 

To be sure Pierre Poilievre has had a bad week. And while the bleeding might have stopped from loss of MPs, it might mean that some MPs are looking to the leadership review in January to demonstrate their displeasure. Raging against unhappy MPs will not go well. Even if floor crossing is shut down, it might not stop people leaving office.

Political Discourse in Canada

While Canadians look in horror at the political violence in the U.S., it is worth noting that Manitoba was created through political violence. The founder of Manitoba Riel ordered the death of Thomas Scott. This act set off a number of actions that both created Manitoba and further violent clashes that eventually led to the death of Riel himself. It is a much more complicated history than that but our Legislature is now led by a First Nations premier. It might have seemed unthinkable a few decades ago. However, we have had a variety of political leaders from different religious and ethnic backgrounds. This has been at both municipal and federal levels in the province.

We should be proud in Manitoba for having fairly open view on who we elect. By and by, we try to elect the who we think are up for the job and the policies that best reflect where we want to go. We don't seem to have the same old hands in office that the U.S. does. This is not likely a reflection of ageism but that Canadians are more likely to put an end to a political career after that person has been there for ten years or so. The desire for change means third terms are rare. Four terms impossible.

I don't know Canadians are cynical but pragmatic and looking for change. But this isn't everywhere. There are a large amount of areas in Canada that don't change from one party all that much ever. In Manitoba, some provincial and federal ridings have rarely changed parties. Not true in the city. Elections are decided in cities because voters are open to changing their vote. 

We have never quite had the political media that the U.S. has. Every bookstore is crammed with political books. Radio stations are filled with political talk. The news programs usually lead with political news. There are dedicated news networks that talk politics all day. Every newspaper or digital news is heavy on politics. For the U.S., it often means leaning toward one or the other political parties.

There just isn't as much of that in Canada. A few Conservatives have crossed the border to engage campuses and political parties. It has largely not had the same impact as south of the border. There are homegrown conservatives in Canada such as Jordan Peterson. Some of his views such as universal healthcare are pretty progressive and they don't want to hear about in the U.S.

Many on the right are provocateurs. In Canada there are a lot of older and grumpy men who grouse on radio, newspapers and sometimes TV.  There is nothing wrong with that. Change is hard, nostalgia is easy. But the grumpy critics are using their words and their voices. The best of them sometimes use facts. The American-owned National Post with its Trump pardoned former owner are so repetitive in their support for Conservatives federally and for Netanyahu in Israel.  It is probably not surprising that you can't find the paper in places like Manitoba. It is only available in digital form. There isn't any news in it except for business news. 

The right wing in Canada is at war with itself half the time. It hates media in general and bleeds it dry of funding or grasps onto Russian funding. Young conservatives in Canada often listen to podcasts in the U.S. if they read, watch or listen to anything. Many just aren't attracted to Conservatives in Canada. As such, there was not much runway for Americans or even prominent Canadians like Peterson to achieve much discussion heading into the last election.

I have not mentioned the NDP and Greens much. There is plenty of progressive voices but they are often caught up in activism which is often incompatible with governing. The Greens have a respected leader who keeps trying to retire. The party just doesn't get elected at various levels and show they can govern. Once Elizabeth May is gone, it may be the end for the Greens as well. As for the NDP, they fight even about the direction of the party. No strong NDP provincial leader wants anything to do with it. While the federal NDL campaigns for electoral reform, the provincial NDP doesn't support it. It is hard to say what the future direction of the NDP federally is.

So while there are conservatives here saddened by the death of Charlie Kirk, there really isn't any movement here to rally young conservatives. An anti-immigration rally in Toronto in the last day barely generated anyone. More pro-immigration people were on site. The protest didn't even seem to draw much conservative media in Canada although I can't say I have checked all social media.

It is probably important in retrospect to remember that Canada is not the same as the U.S. when we watch people political figures get targeted. As Poilievre and Catherine McKenna reported this weekend, they have required police protection because of threats. We have probably been lucky it hasn't resulted in a terrible outcome. It is important to note that someone went after Trudeau and crashed the gates of Rideau College to get him. Mental illness might have been a factor but the target was political.

In the mean time, it is better to keep conversations going and to keep in mind, the average Canadian is probably less concerned with politics than they are with family, school and work. It is hard to rally a movement when you are making lunch for kids for school the next day.

Housing and Rental Prices in Winnipeg 2025

The last couple of decades it has seemed that the prices for housing and costs for rent would increase upwards every month. In some parts of Canada, the costs have gone up around 375%. They are only now starting to go down. A lot of developers are slowing their housing starts because interest rates are still too high, uncertainty in markets and supply chain, tariffs and now immigration. 

Housing prices dipped in the downturn in the 1990s and again in the stock market crash of 2008. And for people who want to go back far enough, the 1980s had a housing collapse linked to oil prices and deep recession that had people hurt badly in Alberta. Back then, prices dropped around 30%. In Winnipeg, prices really didn't budge for years in the 1980s.

It goes to show that there isn't a constant trajectory upwards for house prices and that expecting a 10% return a month is insanity. Those buying a house now for hundreds of thousands today have to ask themselves what the value of the house might when they sell it. If it is much lower, then is going to be painful selling. The seller who is downsizing stands to win if they bought decades back. Still, buying is more expensive no matter what size place. The interest rates, the prices of houses and taxes are all contributing to this.

The Feds under Mark Carney have ended GST for new house sales capped at a rate high enough for most buyers to benefit. The accelerator fund started under Trudeau, which sends federal money to municipalities for shovel-ready projects. In Winnipeg, the program has filled not once but twice. Some of those projects are well under way now.  Affordable housing is key to those projects going forward and they just aren't provincial housing but housing owned by non-profits, churches, universities and the like.

One of things learned about developing affordable housing is that it involves all levels of government, various private, no-profit and charity groups, supply chains and financing. To make matter worse, to get any zoning done in any jurisdiction means having people say how important housing is while making it impossible to build it. 

 We have some cases in Winnipeg where it has taken decades to get stuff built even on land not occupied. There are cases like that all over the country. In some cases having to go to court for obstructions on the part of local governments. Give the shortage of housing, this seems completely irresponsible. Literally thousands of housing units have been held up for years because of council and administration bungling and deliberately sabotage.

The best way to avoid homelessness is to stop tearing down people's home or letting them burn down. And to stop evicting them for renovations and huge increases in rent they can't afford. Or to sell their building once the federal or provincial supports end and once again putting people on the streets. The goal of provincial and the federal governments has to be preserve housing rather making it unaffordable and putting people on the streets. People who are homeless now once lived somewhere. More needs to be done to stop demolitions, arsons or derelict buildings to sit idle or people on the street will accelerate further.

Even as the governments push for more housing, there has been a slow increase as of recent in home sales. Interest rates and uncertainty in the market because of what is happening south of the border are affecting thigs. But pent up demand and the needs of the population won't be denied. Job transfers, retirements, children and other life changes mean people are looking to buy and sell.

The upcoming federal budget will see the government make an effort to get the costs down on things such as GST on newly built houses. The accelerator program will continue to add deeply affordable housing. Developers will only provide it generally if government mandates and funds it. Zoning changes at the municipal level can also help in terms of where building go up and how they are built. With better fire codes you don't need two stairwells or apartments built of steel and concrete. Wood is being used over the world for high rises.

It is going to take a combination of approaches to meet the housing needs. However, the country has done this work in the past and seems committed to doing it now. It still seems painfully slow but the main thing is to keep pressing on. Part of the problem we are facing now is years and even decades of not doing anything.

Is Mark Carney a Conservative?

A short note: Blogging had a moment about 15 years ago more or less. It lasted a while and a few are kicking around today in Manitoba. There were some brilliant historians, analysts and humourists at the time and it was thoroughly enjoyable. Some faded into retirement from writing long form thoughts. I like reading long form material. Social media, whether it be TwitterX, Facebook, TikTok or any of the various messenger services lacks detail and history although some can be informative, timely and entertaining. In the last several months social media has become increasingly filled with AI and is an ever growing source of hostility. It is hard to know what is real or true a lot of the time.

Blogging is slow. And in search engines, something that was written years ago can suddenly take off again as people seek out information, history or news. Mainstream media can fulfil this when it is not firewalled. A blog is there so long as the website remains and the author keeps their posts up. 

I have rarely removed any past posts except where links might not be around anymore. I have fixed poor formatting or typos which there are many. In other word, I tend to leave things alone. Prior to the pandemic the views steadily rose till just prior to the pandemic. For a few short months saw 45,000 people a month in viewers, It dropped in the pandemic and has been steadily rising again till this past June it has reached 45,000 people once more. 

Thanks to those readers. I really don't look all that much or try to write anything that is clickbait. I write what interests me. Take pictures of what I see. I don't limit myself to any one topic. So thank you in this short note.

---

Some conservative media is back and forth on what to think about Mark Carney. Many conservative voters are still scratching their heads about what happened in the election and are now looking closely at Pierre Poilievre's performance. He is still months away from getting a seat back in the Commons. To that end, he appeared on CBC in a interview this week. It is the first time he has done that as leader. Before he had his list of enemies who were never to be engaged. Once he was to become PM it would be the end of the CBC.

Even conservatives seemed to quail at the raw vitriol. Some in the base loved it and even raged further but others, many of them women, sensed this was an anger that could turn on them. There will be a lot of analysis done of of what happened in the election. The truth is that is that the Liberals chose exactly the right candidate and platform for the moment.

I have said here before the Liberals have both left and right contingents in the party. The Conservatives have driven off the progressives in their party federally. More critically, the Conservatives have driven the NDP to near extinction by appealing to working men in labour while at the same time driving women and those afraid of the right to the Liberals. It is not a recipe for a national win. The wind went out of the sails of the federal campaign when Justin Trudeau stepped and when Mark Carney won the leadership.

To distinguish himself in the campaign, Carney said he was ending the carbon tax on gas. He also said he was raising military spending. Much of this was in response to election of Donald Trump. The Justin Trudeau government showed no intent on changing those policies but the Pierre Poilievre-led opposition couldn't seem to benefit from any of this because every time Trump talked about the 51st state, it shifted voters to the party in power.

Even before this, Liberal members were convinced that a fourth term under Trudeau was unrealistic and that it could lead to the party being wiped out. I'm not sure why Conservatives were surprised Trudeau left. In fact, at times they seemed to suggest that it was somehow illegal for them to change leaders or use proroguing as a strategy. It should have come as no surprise. The Conservatives have used such tactics themselves as they are perfectly legal in our system.

The NDP and the Conservatives often say the Liberals steal their policy platforms. They should be flattered. However, if their policy platforms were completely gold, one would think they would propel said parties to victory. The truth is that some parties still have parts of their policy platform or candidates that don't inspire faith. And while some federal parties might say that electoral reform in needed nationally, they make no attempt to change the system provincially when they are in power.

However, back to Carney. He was elected because he appeared to be the person to best deal with Trump and to steer the Liberals back a bit from cliff they were headed to. This is not to say the Liberals are withdrawing from being progressive. On issues like marriage and abortion, they are not about to head in the opposite direction. The Conservative platform in the election chipped away at those areas of law.

I mention the social issues because women played a huge role in the election outcome. There are conservative women to be sure but the over the top hyper masculine approach was only going to go so far. If women don't trust a leader or the policies as they apply to her and her family, she will vote against that leader and party even if a partner votes the other way. The value of the secret ballot remains a woman's best opportunity for change.

The changes on taxes, carbon and otherwise is a right of center Liberal move. But we are not seeing a cut on daycare, dental and pharmacare changes made under Trudeau. Those are progressive ideas. The NDP have all but been wiped out so there is less influence and chance they want to go straight into another election with no leader. Likewise, the Tories have no leader. And the BQ were badly bruised. The one thing that everyone seems to agree on nationally and provincially is the economy needs to be juiced with everything that is happening in the U.S.

So far many premiers are supportive of Carney and his approach to nation-building programs. Federally, the Conservatives supported the bill to try to speed through projects. First Nations leadership has expressed alarm at speed but with 600 chiefs, some are in support of moving forward. It seems unlikely that Carney would push through a project without consultations or support. 

And to be fair there are many projects with First Nations, Metis and Inuit already on infrastructure, housing and a host of other areas. Expediting those already agreed upon would be a boost to economies across Canada. The federal government has a duty to consult in a meaningful way. It does not give 600 First Nations sweeping vetoes according to legal experts. Carney will be looking to get discussions going. It can't be easy. The chiefs wanted to bring lawyers, experts, elders and others to the talk. Assuming a max of 10 people and six thousand or more, an arena would be needed and probably a few weeks/months of discussions. So far it has been limited to chiefs which is a lot.

It is unclear what sort of legal challenge might be coming but there are a number of chiefs who wish to move forward and if some don't want to proceed, it is likely money will be re-directed elsewhere. However, Carney has negotiated with businesses and governments for years. It seems likely he can navigate the waters.

In recent weeks, more conservative media commentators have considered whether Carney is actually a conservative. Or at the least a progressive conservative. This is not great for the Conservative party because when Liberal have been more conservative, the party was wiped out like with Chretien. If Conservatives veer too far to the right, it will hurt them more than they think. They eventually only beat Paul Martin when the party went left with NDP support and corruption in Quebec.

Carney will find that more progressive conservatives might move to him and the party if he continues a path that appears to looking to the right the ship. Poilievre will find it harder to tap into the visceral hatred of Trudeau in dealing with Carney. And the fear and dislike by Canadians for Trump means they are not interested in hearing how everything is broken over and over.

Chretien and Paul Martin were able to convince a large number of Canadians of their goals while splitting the conservative vote. Now, with the progressive vote not split, the Liberals now are just short of a majority. If they can convince enough Conservatives voters to to change their votes next election, the Conservatives might be looking at being longer in opposition. A lot can happen but already Carney is doing things that a Trudeau government would never do.

Election Aftermath

Three months ago the result would have been very different. It is likely the Conservatives would have won a supermajority. Now, the Liberals under Carney has come up 24% in the polls and are just shy of a majority. The resignation of Trudeau, the election of Carney as leader of the Liberals, the tariffs of Trump and the 51st state talk and the collapse of the NDP all contributed to this win.

The post election speeches were telling. Poilievre congratulated the new leader and didn't dispute the result despite losing his own seat. Singh, losing his seat as well and party status, announced he would be stepping down. Blanchet lost a third of Bloc seats. He has only had to face criticism from the Quebec government for a poor campaign. Very quickly after the election, Blanchet indicated he won't be bringing the government down any time soon.

As far as Poilievre goes, he has to face his caucus to see if he can retain their support going forward. Since he lost his seat, Parliamentary rules clearly state the Opposition has to pick a leader in the House. This can be an interim leader but it has to be someone who is a MP. It appears Poilievre has called everyone to solidify his support. But his loss means he is out of the Commons for at least a few months and out of the official residence at Stornoway which is only for elected officials.

One thing is clear is that Poilievre won't be in the Commons until the fall unless Parliament has a summer sitting. And they might if Conservatives make a big deal about it. The G7 meeting is in Alberta in July and it is expected that there will several trade missions around the world. July 1 is the self-imposed deadline for a provincial free trade agreement and it looks like the country made finally get one.

The Trump Effect is not just limited to Canada. Australia just elected a a majority Labor government and the opposition Liberal (conservative) party lost, including the leader's seat. Similarly, the opposition leader in Australia had held the seat for 20 years just like Poilievre. This reversal of conservative wins worldwide will be monitored by many.

In Carney's press conference, the need for speed was emphasized. The Trump tariffs are hurting Canada and they are hurting the U.S. as well. Carney will be looking to get tariffs off of Canada in some sort of agreement. Nevertheless, the U.S. could still have a hard economy due to trade pressures around the world. This affects Canada too.

In Trump's first term, Canada tried to stay below the radar and got a trade deal. However, any hope of getting a pipeline through even under Trump's administration has proven to be fruitless. However, there are LNG projects that will come on stream in B.C. that will benefit all of Canada in terms of economic gains. On Friday, Carney met Premier Danielle Smith and she was reasonably satisfied that the discussion was productive.

An Alberta tradition is to bash Ottawa. However, I think she is aware that if she takes it too far, it may involve violence towards the federal government. There is no control if it devolves to that. As in the time of Covid where some Albertans gathered arms and planned an event at the border, the fear is that there will be a move from politics to terrorism. It seems very unlikely Alberta wants to see what happens to districts that vote on separation. It hurt Quebec badly and still places them in jeopardy.

Carney will have a difficult time to navigate the path on the U.S. but the key will be to agree to negotiations. Any growth plan he has for Canada will have to be get free trade in the country moving. Infrastructure will be key. And looking for trade relationships outside of the U.S. As for the rest, I expect Carney will be looking to keep free speech and democracy strong. He is likely to show tolerance but not be the lightning rod that Trudeau was.

In the end, being an adult, focusing on the economy might be enough to forestall and election for a year or more. Trudeau managed to keep his government going till the edge of the cliff. The trick will be to avoid senseless provocative stances and continue to focus on economy. Even environmental work needs to focus on affordability and sensible and measurable improvements in people lives. A national energy grid comes to mind. Electricity, natural gas and the like but also a real push for supports for new windows, doors, insulation and new technologies. And most importantly, housing. This is what hits many people the hardest. Improve on that and some of the other things will feel less terrible.

Poilievre vs Carney and Threat of Western Separation

What a difference a few months and an external factor like Donald Trump can have on electoral fortunes. Pierre Poilievre seemed to be sailing into one of the most massive majorities in Canadian history for the Conservatives. Justin Trudeau was determined to go into the next election until the opposition said they were going to pull the plug at the earliest opportunity. This led to a flurry of Liberals saying they were not going to run again next election. With cabinet holes to fill, he looked to move the Finance minister Chrystia Freeland to some other position to bring in, allegedly, Mark Carney into Finance. 

Freeland's resignation was the moment that Trudeau found there was just not enough support in the caucus to carry on. And Mark Carney, who opted not to jump into a cabinet with a lameduck PM. He just had to wait till a leadership convention was called. A prorogued Parliament and a leadership convention was a re-set from how 2025 began. As interim PM till the leadership was decided, Justin Trudeau probably had the two best best months an outgoing leader could have. Carney became the PM and had streamlined cabinet sworn in. However, support for Liberals had been steadily rising every time Trump imposed or threatened tariffs. By the time Carney became PM the Liberals had pulled numbers not seen in years.

Oddly enough, even though the Conservatives said they were going to bring the government down, they haven't seemed unprepared this far. They have not been able to adjust to the constant changing campaign that Trump's proclamations bring. Carney has not been perfect thus far. Some of his MPs have gotten in trouble. Some he has removed including his own seat and some he stubbornly keeps in place. One recent MP stepped down after he defended him. It is early in campaign and not uncommon for leaders to have a few candidates who don't work out. It remains to be seen whether these incidents hurt Carney. Or Poilievre. Generally, most people don't pay attention to these incidents.

Preston Manning suggests that anything less that a Poilievre majority win is a vote for Alberta separation. This is the same type of blackmail that Quebec has used over the years. Sad that it comes from Manning who has generally been considered to be not be as extreme. It could be that speaking to the volatile male base of the party makes him presume such an outcome. The enormous gender gap in what polls are saying could make for some surprises. Some men are just not opposed to Liberals. They are angrily opposed. However, if that is the case then it can be said women are even more resolutely opposed to Conservatives. 

This is something to keep in mind when voting on separation takes place. What do women think about this? Truly. A landlocked Conservative province separating? Most polls suggest that only a small minority want a 51st state in Alberta. That same percentage is in Quebec in terms of 51st state. The most recent polling on separation from Canada in Alberta stands at about 20. Still a minority view. Manning's 

If Poilievre is having a hard time figuring an angle with Carney, it is the same problem with all the opposition leaders including Blanchet from the BQ. The more Trump fills the airwaves, the more a unity movement grows. For the moment it is in support of Carney since he is the prime minister. And as such, Carney's response generally has the backing of all the premiers. It is enviable position to be in during the election. Usually the caretaker role is less pronounced. However, it can be said that the authority to respond to an emergency overrides this. Looking like a prime minister is what many Canadians are looking for. 

The premier of Alberta flirts with separation but also calls it nonsense. She knows the polls show it to be a possible loser for her. Danielle Smith already has enough problems in the province as she breaks the crockery. And yet Poilievre does little to distance himself. The person he does need help from his Doug Ford from Ontario and yet never seems to ask. Ford has found it easier to deal with Trudeau and Carney.

At this point in the election, it is clear that neither the premier of Alberta or Poilievre are interested in talking about separation of Alberta or Quebec. Even flirting with it is likely to do harm in Ontario. And that is where he need seats. According to polls, the heavily Conservative Alberta has a loathing for any Trudeau Liberals going back 60 years. However, when they've elected two Conservative majorities, they have felt pretty miserable about that too. 

The polls could be the most off we have ever seen in Canadian history given the crowds turning up for Poilievre. However, Winnipeggers know that just because we loved and turned up in numbers for Phantom of the Paradise, it didn't mean it was a blockbuster. 

It is possible that Carney's French might hold him back or that he stumbles badly in upcoming debates but the desire for stability is something the electorate craves. Poilievre has said he will disturb that but he has said everything is broken. That message is tone deaf when the public fears the country will be carved up by external enemies. Many take a dim view that Conservatives may in fact desire that outcome. For this reason, the polls have been reflecting a new dynamic not seen in Canada ever.

Three weeks are left in the campaign and the only thing we can say is that it is volatile out there.

 

Trump Speech to Congress

The U.S. Congress requires the President to give Congress occasional updates in an address on the state of the union. It is Article 2 of the Construction. Since the time of Ronald Reagan in 1981, an address has been shortly after taking office. Trump's speech was in keeping with that tradition. This was longest address in history and covered a lot.

The 47th President addressed the 119th Congress at Capitol Hill in the longest speech in modern history. It was a combination of script and improvisation and very much a victory lap. The Democrats looked very much defeated and quite frankly, shabby. They wore shirts with messages, carried paddles with messages they kept flashing to the camera. At one point a Democrat had to be escorted off the floor as he was shouting at Trump. 

Throughout the long speech, Democrats heckled and booed. At one time this was just not done. Now it is normalized. This is a reflection of the leaderless aspect of the Democratic party. Biden and Harris are out of sight. The minority leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives have been unable to show real leadership. The Democrats are rudderless with only brief example examples of policy and direction since their federal defeat.

Even in Canada in can be hard to be in opposition even though we have a formalized role for in our democracy. If the government has the majority, it can mean little coverage of opposition parties. Media often doesn't cover anyone except premiers and prime ministers. It isn't great for democracy as a leader-centric system means people are too scared to say anything even when it is clear that it will hurt the them. 

This could be as true for Trudeau and it is for Trump. It is not even 100 day into the presidency but Trump changes positions sometimes a few times in a day.  Trudeau is finished and a new prime minster will be in place. And that new leader will have the same powers as the old one. It is how our system has been set in place. Power used to be more diffuse.

Trump is very good at TV for the most part but his speeches can go on for quite a bit. He crafts himself as entertainment. His jabs at his opponents have been and always will be merciless. Republicans have largely gone silent or just let things happen. Some have tried to mimic his approach but it isn't something that other people have been able to translate into success.

Democrats sitting in the audience did a terrible job of sitting in opposition. Their dress, their paddles with slogans and constant shouting made them look like they were not ready to run a hotdog stand. Consider the professional appearance and demeanor the NDP in Manitoba had just prior to becoming government. They dressed and acted like a government in waiting. The policies were considered better than what the other side was proposing. 

Being in opposition isn't easy. It requires ways to look relevant and oppose in meaningful ways. Some get attention with bluster and histrionics. It can help pull down your opponent but hurt your own likeability. It is unclear how Democrats will become relevant but when in doubt, focus on the economy. It is what worked for Clinton. And at the moment, the economy looks roughs and Trump is at the helm.

Tariff Wars with United States

The plan, if there can be said to be a plan, is to push through as much as Trump administration policy they can get through in the first 100 days. The administration is moving ahead faster than they have people in place who can even direct the departments. Employees are getting layoff notices even while there is little recognition if their jobs are critical to matinal security.

Trump wants tariffs just to see what will happen. It clearly isn't about border security when Canada is already acting on it. Certainly it isn't about Trudeau who is leaving shortly. Some say it is a negotiating tool but others think that is a basic misunderstanding of who pays the tax on this policy. Somehow many people think it is countries other than the U.S. that pay the tariff.

There are some real tariff supporters in his administration but they can't articulate what is they want from Canada except to say Trump says to become the 51st state. The measly amount of fentanyl coming into the U.S. pales to other countries. It is a cover to say it is national security. The goals keep moving. When Canada gets to 2% GDP for defense, the U.S. will say it has to be 5% even though they are not at that level themselves.

If the goal is to have all manufacturers and producers move to the U.S., it will have to force Canada to find new markets for resources. Already aluminum companies are looking to begin shipping their product to Europe which has no tariffs. I'm sure Chinese would like Canadian oil and minerals. These are products that Trump supposedly says the U.S. doesn't need. 

Canada's problem will be to re-new east-west connections to get things to coastal posts. Thankfully, we still have road, rail seaway connections but they could could all stand upgrades. The TMX pipeline to the coast came at the very right time. Improvements are being made to Churchill so more goods can go to Europe through there. 

U.S. unions are terrified that 30,000 steelworkers might be out of a job if Canadian oil is not getting to refineries that employ them according to the Wall Street Journal. Those same unions are asking for tariffs on steel and aluminum in Mexico and Canada. This might be what many unions face. Some of their members do well from tariffs, others lose their jobs.

Polling in the U.S. suggests that even among Republicans, support for tariffs is only about 30%. It is doubtful anyone wants higher prices. Or lose their jobs. However, even if Canada had zero issues at the border, the U.S. would hit the country with a tariff. Trump has been talking about them for years. This is a substitution of taxes. Some Trump supporters believe all income tax disappears hen tariffs take over. The problem is that tariffs will only account for 2% of income tax. That is pretty thin soup.

Most of the trade deficit is oil exports. Some in the administration think they don't need that oil but it is hard to imagine that U.S. finding cheaper, reliable oil from a trusted partner such as Canada. The problem is that no one seems to be listening in America. And those that do are afraid to speak out until it begins to hurt them. And it will hurt. If gas goes up, regular consumers will feel it.

The deadline now seems to be April 2 and Trump has said he will hit many countries with a 25% tariff. Our Foreign Minister Melanie Joly said the Europeans have been stunned about how to respond. She said Canada has to coordinate with its allies. However, that may only occur after the tariffs hit. There are probably many countries hoping it just doesn't happen.

It has been four weeks of chaos so far south of the border. The only thing Canada can do is to make sure it supports Canadian business, looks to create freer trade within Canada and know what our response will be if the U.S. does enact tariffs.

The Jordan Peterson Interview of Pierre Poilievre

It has been seen by over 30 million as the world-wide conservative movement looks to see Pierre Poilievre become prime minister of Canada. Even Poilievre is trying to lower expectations because they are so high right now and that some are hoping he wins every single seat in Canada and that change is instantaneous. This can be a dangerous time since he will possibly have the majority to push through whatever he wants quickly but will the results be just as quick?

I have already written here that I believe that Poilievre will win the election and within his first year, I believe he will cut the carbon tax, pull out of international agreements on climate and cut federal environment engagement in favour of the provinces. I don't believe there will be controversy on lowering the gas tax. NDP governments including in Manitoba have lowered the tax to great popularity. With Trump as president in the U.S., there is likely not going to be any free passes.

Defense policy out of Poilievre's camp seems under developed. This should be of no surprise because the Harper government which Poilievre was part of only spent 0.8 of GDP on defence. That is 47% lower than todays Trudeau government. This is increasingly not being accepted by NATO and especially by Trump. There has has been extreme pressure on Trudeau. It will be no less on Poilievre. Will he support NORAD or NATO? Will he have an answer for Trump when penalties for poor defence spending? As much as Poilievre might want to blame Trudeau, he will have to have some coherent policy here. If the policy is isolation, expect Canada to withdraw in some fashion from alliances. There are certainly some isolationists in the party that want to pull out of the U.N. and other groups. What does it all mean? It means they will have to choose a direction that someone in the party won't like. The Liberals have been doing the same thing for the last several years.

Poilievre mentioned a few potential cabinet ministers. It is fairly weak tea. But then it doesn't matter. All that matters is the Prime Minister's Office. If his party is as weak as the Liberals they won't say a thing as long as he has the polls. Unlike other Commonwealth countries, it is impossible to remove the leaders of parties here. It is how we have set it up. It is a leader-centric party and will cause issues for the Conservatives just as it has with the Liberals. Just as it has for every party with all an all powerful leader and weak cabinet and caucus.

A tough on crime stance was made but no real indication of how that happens. There is no policy, timetable or budget listed for it. Is it more police, change in the parole act, build more prisons or what? Is there a budget for it? Timetable?

The problem with just a long interview with Jordan Peterson is that he is not a journalist. This is a campaign ad. However, given the deep misgivings towards the Liberals, it is possible that the Conservatives don't have to engage any media for the entire election. It has been often said that elections are no places to talk about policy. Perhaps the Conservatives win a massive majority with few details. The danger of this is that is not necessarily an affirmation for that all the party wants to do. Massive majorities in Canada often come from 39% of the vote. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. It is a reason why the Liberals have seen support fall in every year since 2017.

The large majorities Mulroney and Harper got had a far greater amount of policy that was thought out that what we have seen here. Given that Trump is not likely to give the Canadian government a lot of time to develop a coherent plan, expect chaos. And while the Conservatives will blame the Liberals, it is going to be hard to say that over and over again for four years if the country truly suffers. Given the lack of a plan so far, we could be in trouble no matter who wins.

Those hoping for the NDP to breakthrough will find they still don't have strength in Quebec and don't really have a defence policy. The agreement they had with Liberals means they are weaker, not stronger. Those that are in opposition to the Liberals just lump the NDP in there with them. If any party gains strength it is the BQ who look to have another referendum on separation in 2026. It is curious what the Conservative response to that might be. So far there is none.

While the Conservatives under Poilievre seem destined to win in the new year, they don't seem the least temperate in their disposition. We can expect a lot of ripping stuff up like the CBC. However, we can likely see unexpected outcomes as a result. For example, while Conservatives like hockey, their moves on broadcasting might make fewer Canadians have access to it. Unintended consequences.

The mistake in believing your own publicity is that if it is not based on solid policies. And to stay in power, it requires a frequent refreshing of people and idea. This is something the Liberals and the Conservatives don't seem to learn. We have been leaning on cult of personality too long and it is hurting the country.

Canada, the 51st State?

Canada isn't the only place where Donald Trump has expressed American Manifest Destiny. He has set his aim at Panama and Greenland as well. The Panamanian and Danish leaders have rebuffed the overtures. It isn't entirely sure whether it is to get concessions or to actually lay claim to other parts of the world. The thing is that when a president asks his intelligence services or military to do something, they just might actually do it.

There are constitutional mechanisms in both the U.S. and Canada for major changes such as this. Hawaii and Alaska became states in 1959. Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico have been waiting statehood for decades. The U.S. continues to have territories all over the planet but there has not been a big push to add more states or even sub-divide the big states like California.

One major consideration for America is balance of power. Republican party members might only be interested if they felt new states would not automatically be Democratic. This, in part, has held up Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico from statehood. For D.C., there many be grounds based on intent of founding fathers but for Puerto Rico, the reluctance could be the balance of power argument. It is a possible fear that the state would lean to the Democratic party. In other words, Republicans would want another state added that would lean the other way.

This is possibly the biggest argument from the American side about that would prevent Canada from becoming a state. It is the fear that it would be a possible shift in American electoral balance with both senators and a passel of representatives being Democrat. Some senators last week suggested Canada be broken up into two as if western Canada or just Alberta alone would be a sure bet Republican.

No province can separate from Canada. The Clarity Act makes it clear what needs to be done. To even vote on it requires a clear question and negotiation. It cannot be a unilateral decision despite what some separatist leaders have said. It also is worth noting that if Canada is divisible so are the provinces. Arguing that provincial territory is inviolable rings hollow for those looking to separate a province from Canada. 

Trump continues to say Canada should be part of the U.S. but never says how he goes about that. It could all been jibes and negotiating tactics. Canadian TV investor Kevin O'Leary says he wants to meet Trump to discuss economic union or even the 51st state. He says they will meet at Mar-a-Lago. Perhaps they think a new Conservative Conservative will embrace this in Canada.

The Parti Quebecois leads the polls in Quebec for 15 points. The provincial Liberals don't even have a leader. The next election is in 2026 but the CAQ leader will in his late 60s by then and might look quite old compared to the PQ. If there is a federal Conservative government, do they even care if Quebec separates? Does Trump play hardball and say the dairy marketing board end if they separate and ask for a trade deal? Does Alberta try to separate and join U.S. as a state?

The question of what Pierre Poilievre does to respond to Trump could be an huge election issue. It is likely why he is desperate to have the election now before Trump can act as President. It may be hard to explain how flaccid his response is if Trump starts calling him names and slapping tariffs on a government under his Conservatives. 

Would Poilievre stand up for Canada if provinces were trying to separate or would he facilitate it and the chaos that might result.  The level of disruption in the next year could be substantial and it is not really clear who stands up for Canada. Will Canadians do it if politicians don't? 

I do believe overall that Canada will do well into 2025 but it could all be overturned by world instability. And the country being threatened with separation or turning into a state is as fraught with uncertainty as you can get in our history.

Canada and NATO

Canada attends the NATO meeting in Washington DC this week and a lot is riding on many of the participants as the organization reaches 75 years old. For the U.S. all eyes inside and outside America are watching Joe Biden to see if comes back from the presidential debate low. Real fear in NATO is that if Biden is defeated that Ukraine and possibly NATO are cut loose.

The 32 member alliance has seen two new members join in Finland and Sweden. These two long time neutral countries have joined because of the growing threat from Russia and aggression in Ukraine and in other areas. The key metric for NATO countries to hit in military spending is 2% including 20% on new military equipment. In another post I point out how Canada has tripled military spending under Trudeau but we are only at 1.3% of GDP. The plan is to get to 1.7% by 2030.

This is simply not good enough for our allies, especially since 10 years from now the expectation is we still don't get to 2%. Liberal cabinet ministers still talk about soft power and sanctions but they clearly are not working. Bill Blair, the defence minister, is desperately saying more announcements will push it over 2%. He specifically is talking about Navy subs that are either diesel or nuclear. The Australians are buying nuclear ones at a cost of up to $368 billion through to 2050. This would buy between three and five Virginia-class nuclear subs as well as sub manufacturing capabilities. This is part of the Labor party Australia goal of 2% of GDP although the subs would be .15% of that total over the years.

Trudeau met with U.S. senators from both parties and a non-partisan group is pushing Canada to commit to 2%. Canada is being singled out as the riches country with the lowest spending. However, as one of the richer NATO members, it means in dollar amounts it is higher than a lot of European countries. Moreover, Canada commands a brigade in Latvia as well as fully supports Ukraine.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives have not said how they will get to 2%. Pierre Poilievre is pretty quiet on this because he does not want to detail how Conservatives will do that because it is not a vote winner. Certain groups have indicated that they believe we can't hit 2% without significant debt. 

The focus on Canada is making the Trudeau government squirm in ways that they likely hoped would not come. However, Trudeau should not be be surprised as his dad had the same thing happen and had to bring Canada's military spending up to avoid economic sanctions from our allies. Although the Pacific is not part of NATO, Canada has been left out of talks and alliances because soft power is not wanted.

Canada was a founding member of NATO and huge contributor to NATO. Few people were untouched by WWII. Many understood the implications of the Soviet threat and the fear Germany would rebuild and be involved in some way after the war. Soviet aggression through 1950s to the 1980s reinforced the view that NATO was needed. Canada kept forces in Germany thereafter until the 1990s when the Cold War ended with the Soviet Union break-up. Still, over the last 75 years Canadian financing of the military has ebbed and flowed. Sometimes it has been 2% and other times it has been below.

Canada's military is not the only one to be struggling. Britain has nearly 2.5% GDP spending and yet says it could not field a fighting unit for more than 30 days. Canada currently spends $27 billion a year on the military. Australia spends roughly $10-12 billion more than us and 2.2% GDP. It is no wonder Britain and the U.S. have nothing bad to say about Australia. As for Australia, they are terrified of China right in their back yard.

Canada ranks as 7th largest spender in dollars in NATO and 14the largest spender in the world. During the Harper years Canada spent .97 of GDP on defence despite big talks about how they were law and order party.  It could explain why they have not been all over the media criticizing Liberal spending which literally outpaces the Tories. Next year's election will probably not bring clarity on this. It usually warrants a single line in the policy platform with no elaboration from any parties.

The problem is that Canada's allies are cutting the country out. And some of this is going to hurt economically. Trudeau and his cabinet have seemed paralyzed by this. They think our good standing won't be affected by the slow walking of getting to 2%. The announcement that Canada will purchase up to 12 submarines with requests for proposals in the fall is going to be posted. Canada in the 1980s/90s said it would order 12 submarines but it always seems that four is what the end number is. We should expect no less this time.

With the announcement of the submarines, we can expect the Norwegian/German consortium, the Swedes, the Koreans and the Spanish will all be bidding. We can expect a certain amount of competition between these parties. The last submarines purchased from the British were the Victoria-class which at the time seemed like a bargain since they were built but retired because the British had switched to all nuclear fleet. In the end they cost $750 million and that much again in refurbishments and then a $3 billion sustainability program. They have been marked by human error, tragedy and technical issues from the beginning. And now they have a hard time fielding a crew for even one.

The issue of the submarines keeps coming up because all around the world countries are building or buying them because of the threat to waterways from powers asserting themselves to access resources. Canada's Arctic is such a place. It can't be lost on Canada that even small places like Singapore have four subs. So true of Brazil, Malaysia and soon The Philippines. 

Politico and Wall Street Journal have both blasted Canada and the BBC has done a story on it as well. The Sun newspaper chain blames Trudeau while never mentioning how poor the Harper government did while in majority. In Canada the blame game is usually one sided. There were cuts through Chretien, Martin, Harper and Trudeau's time. Procurement has been flawed for decades. Pierre Poilievre will have no less pressure from allies to state how he gets to 2% in next year's election.

The Trump assassination attempt is going to result in a very skittish United States over the next little while. Maybe a long while. There is not telling how the electorate will react. And it is uncertain if Biden can hold onto his candidacy after his poor performance in the debate. There could be severe consequences. Trump has already said there are few things limiting what he will do if president. And now the Supreme Court agrees.

 If Trump becomes the president in November, Ukraine will likely be cut loose and the U.S. might pull out of NATO. The implications for this are immense. If Ukraine falls, it will start a refugee crisis in the millions. Canada may see a huge surge of refugees. It will certainly put all of Europe in crisis. The movement among the conservatives in the Republican party is that they should withdraw from the world save for many two places: Israel and China.

Trump thinks NATO members should be paying the U.S. actual cash for protection. The 2% is spending each country does for defence at home and for the NATO alliance. It isn't a transfer payment to the U.S. for protection. The U.S. receives the lion share of military spending contracts so they do very well in that regard. However, if Trump becomes President, he could bring about penalties immediately. Canada can't afford to have a plan that takes several years to realize. It could be a miserable four Trump years that Canada could take economic hits.

The Defence minister Bill Blair and those that previously served in the role need to make it clear to cabinet and the PM that they believe we don't have much time the avoid punishing responses economically and possibly terrible outcomes militarily. 

The U.S. receives value from NATO because they have been drawn into two world wars originating in Europe and they don't want to be drawn into a third. They have managed to stay out of one in part due to NATO.  

As for Canada, they will still face heat if they don't articulate in more detail what they are doing in defence. This past week it was revealed they bought a large hangar in Iqaluit that Russian and Chinese interests were looking at. The Department of National Defence had leased it in the past but foreign interest and the ability to land and shelter our new F-35 jets played a strong role in buying the hangar and lengthening the runway. 

One significant agreement between Canada, Finland and the United States will see the three cooperate on icebreakers. The details are slim but all three countries need icebreakers to counter the Chinese and especially the Russians who have nearly 40 icebreakers including four nuclear ones. The talk has been that possibly 90 icebreakers might be built. That would be a remarkable number if it holds up. The U.S. is in desperate need with only two top class icebreakers.

One of the other things talked about at NATO conference that Canada looks to bring itself up to 2% spending is NORAD and air defence spending. The threat from Russia in the north is not lost on the government. The purchase of the hangar in Iqaluit is an indication they really don't want Russian or Chinese to set up operation in the north and dominate the area nor travel through it without so much as a by your leave. The problem with the $38.6 billion in spending is that a lot of it comes in the 2030s. It does nothing for 2025 when we may see huge blowback.

To mitigate the economic effects of increased spending on defence the government is likely to look at industrial policy. A military cyber warfare operations center is tied to out economic wellbeing. It isn't just international crime rings but government intervention that tries to disrupt our economic function to take our innovations without compensation.  Runway expansions for military aircraft can double for northern access for civilian use as well. CFB Winnipeg and the Richardson Airport share the campus opposite one another. It is a policy that benefits both.  Only Yellowknife also have a shared airport.

NORAD needs a deepwater port infrastructure and tugs and icebreakers in the north. Three are under construction in Iqaluit, Pond Inlet and Qikiqtujuarq all in Nunavut. Only Churchill, Manitoba is a deepwater port with a railway and airport attached. But the port is largely abandoned. First by the military and then by government of Canada. In recent years the military has rebuffed any mention of Churchill or the north. And yet, the NORAD commitment would imply ships, planes and yes, troops up there and not just on summer break. Canada is upgrading Iqaluit, Inuvik, Yellow Knife and Goose Bay for the military. It is worth noting that we see next to nothing in American media about NORAD. It is probably why Canada has felt no real pressure until recently.

Canada's election in 2025 could have military spending as an election issue. Wab Kinew, Manitoba's premier, has said Canada should speed up NATO spending to not run afoul of a new government in the U.S. This remark came at the premier's conference when the group agreed that the PM should stay out of provincial business save for federal transfers with no strings attached. In recent days Pierre Poilievre says he won't commit to 2% because Canada is broke. He may not get that option if the U.S. government promises punishment. There is some indication that Conservatives might pull out of assistance for Ukraine if the the U.S. does.

It is all very complicated and the election next year in Canada and this year in the U.S. will make it even more complicated. And all the while this is going on, you have Russia and China wanting to buy assets in Canada's north.

Pierre Polievere New Conservative Leader

This past weekend Pierre Poilievre was elected to leader following Erin O'Toole stepping down from the last disappointing result that brought another minority government of Justin Trudeau. In a member held vote, it was the biggest vote account and a massive majority over the next leading contender of Jean Charest.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now...the present Conservative party does not have room for progressives or moderates. It isn't a libertarian party either because there are too many in the party who wish to impose laws on social conservative areas such as abortion. Charest might retain his membership but no one was interested in his moderation. They want a fight and they want it now. And that was supported by the tens of thousands who votes for Poilievre.

Even before the pandemic there have been Conservatives who have been opposed in the extreme to Justin Trudeau. They have been shocked and angry they have not won the last few elections to the point that some of them, especially in Alberta, have talked about separation. Despite many conservative governments in Canada, many conservative chafe under any rules. We have seen conservative on conservative clashes about breaking the law in the UCP conservative leadership campaign.

Now that Pierre Poilievre is the leader, he has to tread more lightly.  If he truly intends to fire the Bank of Canada governor, he can expect that it might affect the markets. Any inkling of instability sends the markets on the move. If he is PM he has every right to his own governor. But a showy removal of the governor and a replacement that seems to have no independence will be harmful and Poilievre likely knows this. It remains to be seen if his party does.

Poilievre has also said he wishes to defund the CBC. Even Stephen Harper did not end the CBC. Even the United States has public and state broadcasters such as PBS, NPR and Voice of America. The President of the United States appoints representatives to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Will he support a PBS model with charitable tax credit or will he cut all all support for public broadcasting? Will he eliminate all tax supports for magazines, newspapers and television? Certainly in his party there are those who want it all gone. And if he doesn't deliver, will they turf him? Or abandon him? One Quebec MP has already resigned to sit as an independent. This was no ordinary party MP, he was Scheer's lieutenant in Quebec. He supported Charest and made it clear he was not comfortable with the new leadership. Poilievre blasted him as a Trudeau enabler and enlisted a social media campaign to get him to resign immediately. There were apologies about that and probably shock at the level of harassment. The damage done has other Conservatives in Quebec upset.

The next days will be about appearing statesman-like with the Queen's passing. These moments are important because if it appears too political with attempts to kneecap your opponent at every turns, it doesn't look very much like a prime minister. Many Canadians are not nearly as political and vote according to what they see. It is why Harper's bid to be re-elected failed as the campaign had taken a meanspirited turn when Canadians were clearly not comfortable where it was going.

I had no special insight into that last Harper election. I thought he was going to win massively in 2015 because I thought his messaging on past leaders of the Liberals was so effective that they were beaten even before the election started. Where Harper went wrong is when he just didn't focus on the opposition parties but on citizens he felt were a threat to Canada. His snitch line and embracing extremist tactics in Ontario was rejected in favour of a more positive Liberal campaign. In recent years, Harper's embrace of anti-Democratic conservative movements in places like Hungary shows where things might have gone.

There won't be an election any time soon unless the NDP decide to take advantage of a change in their relationship with the Liberals to support the minority till the next mandated election. The Conservatives will have time to refine their opposition, firm up their finances and come up with an election platform. The Liberals could tip the apple cart by calling a snap election if their poll numbers indicate a majority. However, evidence from last election suggests Canadians might just return the same minority government again. Possibly a different minority.

One of the reasons Harper won aside from a long reign from the Liberals, corruption, hard times and a rise of the NDP was the fact that he presented a plan that attracted supporters. Governments usually collapse rather than the incoming government given ringing endorsement to rule. However, Harper had a simple package of policies that were understood and he could introduce as bills. Getting nominated leader doesn't necessarily mean an election platform has to be presented when the election is a few years away but his policy so far of firing the Bank of Canada Governor and promoting crypto currency is a winning formula.

Poilievre has won the base, the next thing is to do the math and calculate what seats in Parliament might flip to the Tories. His relationship with the Freedom Convoy might be more of an anchor for him beyond his core supporters. They may have donated big to him but many of them are not likely to be in any mood for the give and take that real politics requires. Many of them have conspiracy theory-based thinking and believe that a vote for their party equals dismantling Canada. This seems to be the rationale for some of the supporters in the leadership battle in Alberta who are also federal Tory supporters.

None of that happens even if Conservatives get a majority. Other levels of government, the courts, the markets and international pressures limit you as they are the guard rails in the system. One consequence of changes in national government is that provincial governments often change to counter it. Canadians are funny that way. Provincial governments get a lot of mileage running against the Feds and blaming them for woes in their provinces. Having the same party provincially and federally is not always fruitful for that type of bun fight.

The Liberals and Conservatives used to be brokerage parties that cast wide tents. In recent years more center/right Liberals have been squeezed out for more left policies. Some in part to prevent gains from NDP but just as much because of Liberal choice. Likewise, Conservatives used to be called Progressive Conservatives and had a center/right tent with many Red Tories who took more socially liberal view on a range of subjects. Today's Conservatives have squeezed out the progressives in both name and idea in the new party.

The cold calculation of the Liberals and the Conservatives is that you can win a majority with 30% of the vote if you target certain ridings across the country. Is it no wonder that 70% of the population often feels that elections don't reflect their vote. Attempts have been to change the system of voting but at a provincial level, it has always been voted down or rejected. And provincial wings and federal wings often disagree on something like proportional representation. 

Poilievre has succeeded in getting younger and diverse members in the party. His digital communication strategy and messaging has helped and the Conservatives will have a lot of new members which is good for them moving forward. If Canada falls into recession, it can give the Tories an opening to see a rise in support. As it stands now, Trudeau is able to look statesman-like at the Queen's funeral and even non-partisan with other former PMs including Poilievre's former boss Stephen Harper posing for pictures in London. 

One assumes that when spring arrives Trudeau once again will be in London for the Coronation which will be another state event that naturally elevates you in the public eye. Most times that is. In India, it went bad which goes to show you that less is more in overseas trips. And if you do have to speak out as in the funeral of a Queen, speak about that person with grace and humility. 

It remains to be seen if Trudeau runs again. It is possible an international job awaits him although Canada has earned a lot of enemies in Russia and China recently so U.N. jobs might be out of the question. Or not. If Trudeau serves as an MP till 2025, he will have served as MP as long as his father who retired at 65. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Trudeau might want to do something different. Even Joe Biden in recent days has not committed yet to running for a second term. In his case, he might judge it based if he feels another six years on the job and whether he is up for it.

Poilievre for all his talk about elites is a political lifer. He has 18 years in Parliament and if Trudeau serves a full term, it will be over 20 years. If he becomes PM, it will be 25 (given a majority). That is called a career politician. If indeed he wins, it will be the pinnacle of a long career. Alas, if Trudeau does run and wins a majority, those long years may not serve the Conservative leader very well.

Trudeau has proved himself a nemesis to the Conservative party. Poilievre has some time to build the party. The question is will he rely on elements of the party that make people question their ability to govern? They can't assume that people will hate Trudeau enough to remove him. And winning every seat in Alberta and Saskatchewan by huge majorities doesn't earn you enough seats. It will come down to personal appeal and finding candidates who can win seats they don't presently hold. And that usually is in Ontario.

As mentioned, I'm not good at predicting. I once thought Alberta would have a PC government for as long as I lived. I was wrong. I thought the 1980s Liberals in Ontario would win another term. I was wrong. I thought Stephen Harper would win another majority.. I was wrong. Truth is that a lot of people are not wedded to any particular party and you have to win their votes. Or, at least not have them so mad at you, they want to toss you out.

It will be interesting to see. What is more interesting is that world issues of climate, war, migration and authoritarianism are are all buffeting countries. Those things can cause both a politician's fortunes to rise or fall. Which will it be? Who is to say?