Sure you can talk about policies but you failed to mention the big one that seemed to have garnered more attention is their housing plan. At a time where housing affordability is keynto grabbing younger voters, this seemed to gain some traction. Yes young voters have less of a propensity to vote but they are the ones who are attracted to the Conservatives.
Making a capital gains tax announcement is very niche and to those who own a business. I'm an independent business and I don't gain from any capital gains tax relief, so why would it matter to me. Why should that matter to everyday Canadians? Sure it will lead to some campaign contributions.
Right now voters want to see how Canada is respected on the global stage and at home. Jobs are at stake with the tariffs. Life will get more expensive with the tariffs and inflation. American business leaders are asking tough questions of Trump. People are voting based on leadership traits, personality, respectability.
We will see next week what transpires in the debate stage. How will Carney fare in French and on the issue of his financial dealings. It's clear I gave a lot to say on this as much as many of the other pundits and this could have turned into a reactionary long form post. Anyway, I'll leave it here for now.
I agree with you that housing is the big question and a real need. However, I hope that they come up with housing that is well designed and sustainable, and gives people dignity and not just ant sized with driverless neighborhoods where disposable income is spent consuming goods from massive companies delivered to your door under surveillance state. Where is the freedom in that? Who wins from that? Canada used to have a dream, like the US, where you could own a home, build a life and be around some trees and even go for a hike.
That capital gains money does affect the people who don’t have stocks. Why? It creates this massive capital injection to be invested in Canadian only startups and businesses. It will be a rocket ship stimulus injection to spur business growth. I spoke to some investors in Switzerland last month and they are so excited about the defense spending happening in Europe because it’s a stimulus they needed into their sluggish slowly disappearing GDP. Very rich people and companies with a ton of cash over the last decade have been sitting on that. It has slowed things down. Injection of capital into a country and city changes the game. Right now that is locked up in older people who sit on it because they don’t want to pay the tax man. Giving them the opportunity to invest it will be an excellent thing for all Canadians!
Since 1993, the Federal government downloaded responsibility of housing to the provinces. The only thing I was lay blame on the Trudeau Liberals was the amount of unskilled immigration which didn't meet housing demand. There are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the federal government including the rise of short term rentals and housing treated as an investment property.
I think the problem is that they allowed so many people into certain cities without the housing, schools and public transportation are in place. Not to mention hospital so we’re already overrun and exhausted from Covid. I’m interested to hear you say that it’s the provinces that are causing the problem. Can you explain more what the provinces didn’t do so I can be better informed?
The feds used to build affordable housing. That went by the wayside in the early 90s and they left it to the provinces. Here in Ontario, housing targets were not met. As much as they tried to Housing rests with the provinces and building, zoning, development charges are with municipalities. This is why last year, the Feds bypassed provinces to fund municipalities to get housing built. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-housing-program-federal-budget/.
Housing is a major issue. That said - when looking at Carney’s house building program - Canadians should keep in mind that the same promise was made by the Liberal Party back in 2015 and every election since. They also promised electoral reform, a balanced budget, and Canadian unity through accountability. The reality and outcome is far short of what was promised by the Liberals. This is the reason they want to keep the focus on TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TARIFFS TARIFFS TARIFFS in the election campaign. 🇨🇦 🗳️
Ever thought how the provinces didn't deliver on housing? It took the federal government to bypass the provinces and provide funding to the municipalities, albeit late. So your statement is far from accurate and people should not compare what it being proposed vs what was done early in Trudeau's first term.
Fantastic piece. The elbows up rhetoric is purely a campaigning tactic. Carney will capitulate to the US after the election. Ian Bremner from Eurasia Group has admitted as much. Of course he would know as his firm is packed with the preeminent Liberal insiders including Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney (quietly removed from the website now). Canadians are being duped by tough talk and TRUST! as the previous commenter suggests. What Carney knows and won’t say is Canada cannot win a trade war nor can $500 billion dollars in trade be pivoted to weaker economies like the EU and god forbid China in any rationale way to offset this economic nuclear bomb.
The Liberals will continue their disastrous policies and Canada will continue its economic decline. With the USA moving full steam ahead on energy projects, the comparative GDP between the two countries will turn into a chasm. Piling on infinite debt to paper over systemic issues, and ploughing more immigrants in to give veneer of growth will seal our fate. Tough times ahead and once it all shakes out, blaming them on Trump won’t be an option.
Thank you I spent a long time writing this digest and watching for three whole weeks to offer you guys something useful. As you see, I don’t even ask people to pay. I’m just trying to help Canada and the US drive and thrive. together.
Let me begin by declaring that I am an Independent voter. I agree that Justin had to go for his walk in the snow, yes, there was a leadership election in the Liberal party and Mark Carney won, over whelm inly so. Three months ago Pierre was the only option with very few policy statements aside from "Axe The Tax" and Justin had to go. There was very little to stand behind Pierre and no choice, until Mark Carney arrived on the scene and Donald began to attack Canada. Pierre has been tarred with Trumps brush! I have to ask where were the three policy statements of which you speak, three months ago?
TRUST is key, you could feel it when Mark stepped up and challenged Donald, "its over" and he didn't hesitate, as Prime Minster, to retaliate. There is something to learn when a businessman with his credentials steps into the fray and becomes a politician, with no experience. Yes, one needs to reach out to age old friends at a time like this.
When the Trump boogeyman disappears, Canada will be stronger for its removal of interprovincial trade barriers, and the Us will left to restore the trust relationship with the rest of the world
The housing plan speaks to modular housing which is both a suburban and urban issue which means housing will be affordable and built faster. Really what it boils down to are the cities, development charges and zoning. Mike Moffatt critiques the components of the Liberal Housing Plan. I don't like comparing anything to the US. We have to be leaders not followers in addressing the housing crisis that's before us
I agree about older people sitting on cash as much as seniors aging in place and holding up the housing stock. You need a trigger to unlock investment. But we have to use investment as a balance to spending. How are you going to instill consumer confidence? Surely not a capital tax relief.
I honestly believe that Poilievre is throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks. The capital tax could be winnable but not to the majority of the electorate. Right now it's about voters under 35 and seniors.
Seniors will love the fact that they can take out shares, and if pension funds came on board as well in someway to show seniors, they can invest in the future while taking the money out of tax-free.
Pierre will absolutely decimate Carnie in the debate. If there is a French debate, he will annihilate him. Pierre is loved. Carnie is tolerated (barely)
Another Liberal term would demote Canada from being Mississippi to being Albania if not Chad.
As your resident clean energy believer, I have some thoughts on the framing of energy in this note/in the election – with the caveat that I am not a Canadian energy expert! First, I’d caution against thinking about a binary choice between Canada’s “natural” resources of oil and gas and renewables. It insinuates that renewables are somehow the “unnatural” choice - but are not wind, solar, hydro also abundant, natural, and literally infinite resources available to Canada?
Secondly, most countries (including Canada) and investors (including Carney’s Brookfield) appear to agree that having a diversified portfolio of oil & gas and renewables provides the best buffer against volatile energy prices, geopolitical energy security concerns, and preventing the climate impacts of greenhouse gases. There may be a perception that Canada under Liberals has turned away from O&G due to their more vocal focus on climate, but from my light research that doesn’t appear to be the case? Drilling is at a ten year high (https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7397775) enabled by new infrastructure like a C$34 billion (!) pipeline that just opened last year in Alberta, thanks to the backing of the Trudeau government that literally assumed ownership to push it through despite local opposition (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canadas-long-delayed-trans-mountain-oil-pipeline-set-start-operations-2024-05-01/).
Similarly, as much as Carney may publicly tout his renewables chops, his investment portfolio under Brookfield displays an understanding of the value of energy diversification. Brookfield owns at least 215 different oil and gas assets (https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/brookfield-corporations-fossil-fuel-investments-undermine-climate-commitments/) in addition to a portfolio of renewables. This is consistent with most major global investor portfolios. Nobody wants to be stuck with an all-hydrocarbons portfolio when prices drop (like in 2020) or when the oil and gas literally dries up later this century. Similarly, an all-renewables portfolio has proved to be too risky - nascent technologies and early-stage industries are more vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks like inflation, high interest rates, supply chain shortages, etc. Compare the stock of Equinor, Norway’s majority state-owned energy company which maintained a diversified portfolio including O&G, versus that of Orsted, Denmark’s version that divested from O&G to focus 100% on renewables.
Finally, I challenge the notion that embracing new clean energy technologies is incongruous with economic growth. I always think about how the economic transformations of this century have been enabled by the embrace of *new* technologies, new markets and new ways of living (thinking of digital technologies in this case) - why can’t renewables represent the same potential?
Thanks for reading and for providing a forum for to grapple with these questions. :)
Charlotte , thanks for these links and the thoughtful insights on how Canada is actually pumping more oil. The problem is that Western Canada and, especially Alberta, feel that the Liberal government has not really been behind them for oil and gas production and namely in pipelines. They’re pumping more gas because there is such a huge demand, especially with the war in Russia.
Canada’s past Prime Minister Harper explains it well: “Canada should be the wealthiest and most self-reliant economy in the world. We have the third largest oil reserves in the world yet we import 179 million barrels of foreign oil every year because the liberals shut down our wealth-generating pipelines while leaving us reliant on the United States. We are the fifth largest supplier of natural gas, but we still can’t export liquid natural gas because the liberals claim there is ’no business case’ for doing so.” I would add, in my own words and through my own digging, this simple point: Trudeau stopped Northern Gateway pipeline, which had already been approved while massively focusing on new energy sources that haven’t brought us wealth yet and don’t support Canada’s significantly growing debt and immigration from unskilled workers. This stopping of Northern Gateway was a major blow that angered the West.
The Liberals also did not ensure that Keystone went through under Biden, and sacked other pipelines, as well as limited export of LNG.
Given Alberta and the West do not take transfer payments from the government (Quebec takes over $10B/year) and the West is the major contributor with Ontario to 🇨🇦GDP, they don’t appreciate the Liberal government’s debt friendly approach: “Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth.”
More oil and gas— alongside renewables—is a pathway to a more robust GDP in Canada UNTIL the climate tech industry can make up the difference. That is the key. Allow them to compete versus killing the money that keeps Canada sovereign. Western Canada feels like they are being held back and, as Conrad Black wrote in the National Post, ( https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-a-mark-carney-win-would-be-a-disaster-for-canada ) ever since the Liberals took charge, Canadian debt has doubled, Canadian food bank lines have doubled, Canadian cost of housing has doubled.
The fear is that another liberal government will just drive Canada deeper into debt which will make it reliant on international lenders, which means China and America will in actuality own Canada as debt holders. Without natural resources as the backbone of Canada, it will be owned by others through debt rather than a Trump takeover. Neither options are attractive if you live in Canada and believe it to be a sovereign nation.
I know the UK would not like to be reliant on France, nor America owned by Chinese who hold our debt, nor have government that cripples them from being independent. I think what would bridge the West with the rest of the country is if they saw a government who is naturally using their resources, boosting GDP while also creating a stimulus for a climate renewables environment/industry.
Sure you can talk about policies but you failed to mention the big one that seemed to have garnered more attention is their housing plan. At a time where housing affordability is keynto grabbing younger voters, this seemed to gain some traction. Yes young voters have less of a propensity to vote but they are the ones who are attracted to the Conservatives.
Making a capital gains tax announcement is very niche and to those who own a business. I'm an independent business and I don't gain from any capital gains tax relief, so why would it matter to me. Why should that matter to everyday Canadians? Sure it will lead to some campaign contributions.
Right now voters want to see how Canada is respected on the global stage and at home. Jobs are at stake with the tariffs. Life will get more expensive with the tariffs and inflation. American business leaders are asking tough questions of Trump. People are voting based on leadership traits, personality, respectability.
We will see next week what transpires in the debate stage. How will Carney fare in French and on the issue of his financial dealings. It's clear I gave a lot to say on this as much as many of the other pundits and this could have turned into a reactionary long form post. Anyway, I'll leave it here for now.
I agree with you that housing is the big question and a real need. However, I hope that they come up with housing that is well designed and sustainable, and gives people dignity and not just ant sized with driverless neighborhoods where disposable income is spent consuming goods from massive companies delivered to your door under surveillance state. Where is the freedom in that? Who wins from that? Canada used to have a dream, like the US, where you could own a home, build a life and be around some trees and even go for a hike.
That capital gains money does affect the people who don’t have stocks. Why? It creates this massive capital injection to be invested in Canadian only startups and businesses. It will be a rocket ship stimulus injection to spur business growth. I spoke to some investors in Switzerland last month and they are so excited about the defense spending happening in Europe because it’s a stimulus they needed into their sluggish slowly disappearing GDP. Very rich people and companies with a ton of cash over the last decade have been sitting on that. It has slowed things down. Injection of capital into a country and city changes the game. Right now that is locked up in older people who sit on it because they don’t want to pay the tax man. Giving them the opportunity to invest it will be an excellent thing for all Canadians!
Yeah, because everything that fails is the fault of the provinces 🙄. Never the Liberal federal government. They are immune from accountability.
Since 1993, the Federal government downloaded responsibility of housing to the provinces. The only thing I was lay blame on the Trudeau Liberals was the amount of unskilled immigration which didn't meet housing demand. There are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the federal government including the rise of short term rentals and housing treated as an investment property.
I think the problem is that they allowed so many people into certain cities without the housing, schools and public transportation are in place. Not to mention hospital so we’re already overrun and exhausted from Covid. I’m interested to hear you say that it’s the provinces that are causing the problem. Can you explain more what the provinces didn’t do so I can be better informed?
The feds used to build affordable housing. That went by the wayside in the early 90s and they left it to the provinces. Here in Ontario, housing targets were not met. As much as they tried to Housing rests with the provinces and building, zoning, development charges are with municipalities. This is why last year, the Feds bypassed provinces to fund municipalities to get housing built. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-housing-program-federal-budget/.
Housing is a major issue. That said - when looking at Carney’s house building program - Canadians should keep in mind that the same promise was made by the Liberal Party back in 2015 and every election since. They also promised electoral reform, a balanced budget, and Canadian unity through accountability. The reality and outcome is far short of what was promised by the Liberals. This is the reason they want to keep the focus on TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TARIFFS TARIFFS TARIFFS in the election campaign. 🇨🇦 🗳️
Ever thought how the provinces didn't deliver on housing? It took the federal government to bypass the provinces and provide funding to the municipalities, albeit late. So your statement is far from accurate and people should not compare what it being proposed vs what was done early in Trudeau's first term.
Fantastic piece. The elbows up rhetoric is purely a campaigning tactic. Carney will capitulate to the US after the election. Ian Bremner from Eurasia Group has admitted as much. Of course he would know as his firm is packed with the preeminent Liberal insiders including Carney’s wife, Diana Fox Carney (quietly removed from the website now). Canadians are being duped by tough talk and TRUST! as the previous commenter suggests. What Carney knows and won’t say is Canada cannot win a trade war nor can $500 billion dollars in trade be pivoted to weaker economies like the EU and god forbid China in any rationale way to offset this economic nuclear bomb.
The Liberals will continue their disastrous policies and Canada will continue its economic decline. With the USA moving full steam ahead on energy projects, the comparative GDP between the two countries will turn into a chasm. Piling on infinite debt to paper over systemic issues, and ploughing more immigrants in to give veneer of growth will seal our fate. Tough times ahead and once it all shakes out, blaming them on Trump won’t be an option.
Thank you I spent a long time writing this digest and watching for three whole weeks to offer you guys something useful. As you see, I don’t even ask people to pay. I’m just trying to help Canada and the US drive and thrive. together.
Let me begin by declaring that I am an Independent voter. I agree that Justin had to go for his walk in the snow, yes, there was a leadership election in the Liberal party and Mark Carney won, over whelm inly so. Three months ago Pierre was the only option with very few policy statements aside from "Axe The Tax" and Justin had to go. There was very little to stand behind Pierre and no choice, until Mark Carney arrived on the scene and Donald began to attack Canada. Pierre has been tarred with Trumps brush! I have to ask where were the three policy statements of which you speak, three months ago?
TRUST is key, you could feel it when Mark stepped up and challenged Donald, "its over" and he didn't hesitate, as Prime Minster, to retaliate. There is something to learn when a businessman with his credentials steps into the fray and becomes a politician, with no experience. Yes, one needs to reach out to age old friends at a time like this.
When the Trump boogeyman disappears, Canada will be stronger for its removal of interprovincial trade barriers, and the Us will left to restore the trust relationship with the rest of the world
The housing plan speaks to modular housing which is both a suburban and urban issue which means housing will be affordable and built faster. Really what it boils down to are the cities, development charges and zoning. Mike Moffatt critiques the components of the Liberal Housing Plan. I don't like comparing anything to the US. We have to be leaders not followers in addressing the housing crisis that's before us
I agree about older people sitting on cash as much as seniors aging in place and holding up the housing stock. You need a trigger to unlock investment. But we have to use investment as a balance to spending. How are you going to instill consumer confidence? Surely not a capital tax relief.
I honestly believe that Poilievre is throwing anything at the wall to see if it sticks. The capital tax could be winnable but not to the majority of the electorate. Right now it's about voters under 35 and seniors.
Seniors will love the fact that they can take out shares, and if pension funds came on board as well in someway to show seniors, they can invest in the future while taking the money out of tax-free.
Pierre will absolutely decimate Carnie in the debate. If there is a French debate, he will annihilate him. Pierre is loved. Carnie is tolerated (barely)
Another Liberal term would demote Canada from being Mississippi to being Albania if not Chad.
Heidi, good food for thought as always.
As your resident clean energy believer, I have some thoughts on the framing of energy in this note/in the election – with the caveat that I am not a Canadian energy expert! First, I’d caution against thinking about a binary choice between Canada’s “natural” resources of oil and gas and renewables. It insinuates that renewables are somehow the “unnatural” choice - but are not wind, solar, hydro also abundant, natural, and literally infinite resources available to Canada?
Secondly, most countries (including Canada) and investors (including Carney’s Brookfield) appear to agree that having a diversified portfolio of oil & gas and renewables provides the best buffer against volatile energy prices, geopolitical energy security concerns, and preventing the climate impacts of greenhouse gases. There may be a perception that Canada under Liberals has turned away from O&G due to their more vocal focus on climate, but from my light research that doesn’t appear to be the case? Drilling is at a ten year high (https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7397775) enabled by new infrastructure like a C$34 billion (!) pipeline that just opened last year in Alberta, thanks to the backing of the Trudeau government that literally assumed ownership to push it through despite local opposition (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canadas-long-delayed-trans-mountain-oil-pipeline-set-start-operations-2024-05-01/).
Similarly, as much as Carney may publicly tout his renewables chops, his investment portfolio under Brookfield displays an understanding of the value of energy diversification. Brookfield owns at least 215 different oil and gas assets (https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/brookfield-corporations-fossil-fuel-investments-undermine-climate-commitments/) in addition to a portfolio of renewables. This is consistent with most major global investor portfolios. Nobody wants to be stuck with an all-hydrocarbons portfolio when prices drop (like in 2020) or when the oil and gas literally dries up later this century. Similarly, an all-renewables portfolio has proved to be too risky - nascent technologies and early-stage industries are more vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks like inflation, high interest rates, supply chain shortages, etc. Compare the stock of Equinor, Norway’s majority state-owned energy company which maintained a diversified portfolio including O&G, versus that of Orsted, Denmark’s version that divested from O&G to focus 100% on renewables.
Finally, I challenge the notion that embracing new clean energy technologies is incongruous with economic growth. I always think about how the economic transformations of this century have been enabled by the embrace of *new* technologies, new markets and new ways of living (thinking of digital technologies in this case) - why can’t renewables represent the same potential?
Thanks for reading and for providing a forum for to grapple with these questions. :)
Charlotte , thanks for these links and the thoughtful insights on how Canada is actually pumping more oil. The problem is that Western Canada and, especially Alberta, feel that the Liberal government has not really been behind them for oil and gas production and namely in pipelines. They’re pumping more gas because there is such a huge demand, especially with the war in Russia.
Canada’s past Prime Minister Harper explains it well: “Canada should be the wealthiest and most self-reliant economy in the world. We have the third largest oil reserves in the world yet we import 179 million barrels of foreign oil every year because the liberals shut down our wealth-generating pipelines while leaving us reliant on the United States. We are the fifth largest supplier of natural gas, but we still can’t export liquid natural gas because the liberals claim there is ’no business case’ for doing so.” I would add, in my own words and through my own digging, this simple point: Trudeau stopped Northern Gateway pipeline, which had already been approved while massively focusing on new energy sources that haven’t brought us wealth yet and don’t support Canada’s significantly growing debt and immigration from unskilled workers. This stopping of Northern Gateway was a major blow that angered the West.
While Liberals can say they “bought” a pipeline with a $4B investment into Trans Mountain but it has been rife with problems (as government built infrastructure can be) and risks producing less oil because of government regulations and fees. You can read about it here: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canadas-trans-mountain-pipeline-lowers-forecasts-amount-oil-it-ships-2025-04-02/
The Liberals also did not ensure that Keystone went through under Biden, and sacked other pipelines, as well as limited export of LNG.
Given Alberta and the West do not take transfer payments from the government (Quebec takes over $10B/year) and the West is the major contributor with Ontario to 🇨🇦GDP, they don’t appreciate the Liberal government’s debt friendly approach: “Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth.”
More oil and gas— alongside renewables—is a pathway to a more robust GDP in Canada UNTIL the climate tech industry can make up the difference. That is the key. Allow them to compete versus killing the money that keeps Canada sovereign. Western Canada feels like they are being held back and, as Conrad Black wrote in the National Post, ( https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-a-mark-carney-win-would-be-a-disaster-for-canada ) ever since the Liberals took charge, Canadian debt has doubled, Canadian food bank lines have doubled, Canadian cost of housing has doubled.
The fear is that another liberal government will just drive Canada deeper into debt which will make it reliant on international lenders, which means China and America will in actuality own Canada as debt holders. Without natural resources as the backbone of Canada, it will be owned by others through debt rather than a Trump takeover. Neither options are attractive if you live in Canada and believe it to be a sovereign nation.
I know the UK would not like to be reliant on France, nor America owned by Chinese who hold our debt, nor have government that cripples them from being independent. I think what would bridge the West with the rest of the country is if they saw a government who is naturally using their resources, boosting GDP while also creating a stimulus for a climate renewables environment/industry.