Kenney out here every day demonstrating a sane, reality informed third path for Conservatives on the US/Canada file.
But, nah, Conservatives and their influencers continue the battered spouse routine as the Trump admin escalates on increasingly precarious logic.
And then wonder why they can't land a punch on Carney in the midst of one of the PM's worst weeks on record.
The political malfeasance of it.
Ultimately, the actions of those who counsel surrender do not change the fact that the time for more Canadian concessions has long passed. Canada must stand firm, recognize that we are dealing with gangsterism, and focus our efforts on building our own national strength, standing with democratic allies around the globe as well as Americans who reject Trump’s dishonest approach, and, most importantly, stiffening our spines and keeping our elbows up rather than giving in to fear.
To my Conservative influencer friends. I say this with affection.
The tide is turning. If you've built your following by parroting niche US talking points Blaming Canada over the last six months, you're soon going to find yourself naked on the beach.
It's very clear that the Davos speech got under a lot of American skin. It's garnered shock and even derision -- some of which may be warranted.
What I haven't seen is a lot of Americans engaging in real self-reflection about why that speech bothered them so much.
A large percentage of voters understand that there won't be a deal. And even if there is one, it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
The fact that Conservatives continue to stand with the 25 per cent of voters who are convinced that America is acting in good faith is an interesting tactical decision.
Today, our long-range sanctions worked across three areas on Russian territory, as well as on our temporarily occupied land and at sea. In particular, in response to Russian strikes on our civilian infrastructure and on our cities and communities, two major logistics facilities were hit – in the Moscow and Tambov regions, more than 500 and nearly 700 kilometers from the front line. The aggressor used them to supply sanctioned components for drone production and navigation equipment. An oil facility was also struck. In addition, Ukrainian mid-range strikes engaged targets in the waters of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, and in our temporarily occupied Crimea.
I thank the warriors of the Unmanned Systems Forces, the Special Operations Forces, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, and the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine – every unit of Ukraine's Defense Forces – for their precise and coordinated execution of these missions. Glory to Ukraine!
Michiganders shouldn't have to breathe Canada's negligence. YEAR AFTER YEAR the smoke crosses the border while Canada does nothing. Stop exporting your smoke into our skies. Enough is enough!
So is anybody who lionized this kid for being the Joan of Arc of climate change going to say anything about the fact that she switched to the Gaza attention train so seamlessly? If you’re a serious climate activist or if you’re a serious Israel critic, I kinda think her schtick should embarrass you. Because it highlights the mimetic faddishness of both causes.
As a major investor in the Canadian oilsands, I view this announcement as a win. Pathways, while an unnecessary cost, has been modified to be acceptable, especially with an incremental 1MM Bbl/d of takeaway capacity tied to it. Initial 2 stages decreased in size by ~70%, pushed out by 5 years, and costing ~$30BN less (source: Peters & Co.). There has been a major shift in tone and for the first time in 10+ years, it feels like Government and Industry are finally on the same team. Let's go 🇨🇦!
https://t.co/Hep5uAFgBl
If more US alllies had followed Canada's courageous example, and brought home to Trump the folly of his economic war on the world, American consumers would have been spared the pain of Trump's higher prices - and American workers would not have lost jobs to higher input costs.
Our government will always be there to support people on hard times—but that doesn’t include people living in Canada illegally.
If provincial regulations need to be changed to make that crystal clear, we’ll change them.
@AlDefinitely Stage 4 pancreatic cancer isn’t something you beat. All you can hope to do is prolong your life as long as you can. The 5 year survival rate is 3%
The Liberal Party has proven durable—Trudeauism has not
American commentator @mattyglesias wrote this week that Justin Trudeau is “low-key the most successful progressive leader of our time.”
Trudeau was no doubt electorally successful. He took the Liberal Party from third place to government, won three elections, and governed for nearly a decade. But if success is measured by the durability of his ideas, then Trudeauism is more consequential as a warning to progressives elsewhere than as a political model.
Trudeau’s significance lies in what he rejected. He came out of the post-financial-crisis Left that had turned against Clintonism and Blairism, and he sought to overturn a governing paradigm that had broadly shaped Canadian policy since the 1985 Macdonald Commission. Fiscal restraint, market-led growth, competitive taxation, resource development, and a generally constrained federal government gave way to a more expansive vision of state action. Trudeauism amounted to more than a collection of policies. It was a deliberate attempt to shift the Canadian political economy to the Left.
The Trudeau years are thus best understood as a large-scale test of progressive governance. Canada’s Westminster system gave Trudeau something that Barack Obama never had: a majority government with few counter-majoritarian checks standing in his way. The ideas coursing through global progressivism—de facto open borders, deficit-financed entitlement expansion, an equity-first economic agenda, identity politics excess, and even a so-called “feminist foreign policy”—got about as frictionless expression in Canada as any Western democracy has permitted.
The results amounted to what we’ve calleda “lost decade.” On various measures of economic and social well-being, Canada underperformed its peers. Perhaps the best (or worst) example is the Trudeau government’s record on real GDP per capita growth. Between 2014 and 2024, Canadian growth was the third-lowest among advanced economies, and the country’s GDP per capita fell below the OECD average for the first time on record.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that Trudeau not only left office as one of the most unpopular prime ministers in Canadian history, but that the country found itself in a more general malaise. The share of the population that believed the country was on the wrong track and doubted their children’s futures reached the highest levels in decades.
Prime Minister Carney’s own policy agenda is the strongest evidence the against the durability of Trudeauian progressivism. He’s repealed the consumer carbon tax, abandoned the capital gains tax hike, lowered immigration targets, shelved the Online Streaming Act and the digital sales tax, and swapped “resourcefulness not resources” for pipelines. His government talks about growth rather than redistribution and patriotism rather than post-nationalism. He also goes out of his way to present himself as leading a new government rather than continuing the old one, which, it’s fair to say, isn’t how incumbents treat successful predecessors.
Even the new entitlement programs that Yglesias cites as durable legacy cut the other way. Pharmacare is quietly languishing, while dental care and child care sit atop a structural deficit that Trudeau built and never funded. Deficit-financed entitlements are less a consolidated inheritance than unfunded mandates awaiting a fiscal reckoning.
The fair verdict gives Trudeau his due and no more. He ran the experiment that progressives elsewhere never got to run, and the returns came back negative on both the economics and the politics. The Liberal Party has proven durable. Trudeauism has not.
Trudeau matters as a case study rather than a model, and the people who’ve read the study most carefully are sitting in Carney’s cabinet.
https://t.co/9H6NojFVUy
The cost of C-69, C-48, blockades, cancellations, obfuscations, and evolving legal interpretations of rights is that the public has to bear more risk on pipelines.
A privately led west coast pipeline is no longer an option for us. A publicly led one is the best available option
There is precisely zero economic benefit in producing higher value-added goods. What firms want are higher *margins*, wherever they can get ’em — it doesn’t matter where in the value-added chain.
The value-added fallacy is one of the oldest and most pernicious in economics. It’s a form of industrial snobbery: the kind that leads people to lament being “hewers of wood and drawers of water” in the country with perhaps the greatest supplies of both in the world.