 By Ray Rivers
April 18th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The political debates in Canada’s federal election this year are over. As is often the case, there were no winners in either of the two debates held in each of the country’s official languages. If anything, Mark Carney as the front runner deserves credit for largely surviving the assault in both debates by the other three political leaders.
 Prime Minister Mark Carney Carney is not your typical politician. He is an academic and an intellectual with an impressive resume of achievements. And, he’s clearly not very comfortable in the political bun fight. He was barraged by attacks from all sides and seemed overwhelmed at times. But he did maintain his cool, added some occasional humour and brought forward methodical rebuttal arguments.
Carney appeared to become defensive about his decision to eliminate the consumer carbon tax and as he discussed his time as Brookfield CEO. Even his gotcha question about Poilievre’s security clearance didn’t really work for him. And Carney, the economist, failed to admonish Poilievre for his erroneous assumptions on the cause of our post pandemic inflation.
Unlike the other leaders, particularly Poilievre, he was courteous and polite with his responses, rarely, if ever, interrupting someone speaking. Clearly he is more used to the etiquette of the board room than to cut-throat political theatre. Still, he survived the onslaught and methodically made some good points, though he delivered no serious blows and failed to decimate his opponents. In this high stakes poker game we call politics he left a lot of money on the table.
Pierre Poilievre used almost all of his time to effectively regurgitate his well rehearsed stump speech. There was really nothing new in anything he said but he repeated it well. Perhaps he is waiting for his actual platform to be released. However, he reached beyond logic to defend his decision to become the first federal leader to want to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
It all became very annoying, the robotic repetition of his familiar attack dog routine – the lost Liberal decade and how he’d bury the Impact Assessment Act, Bill 69, which actually hasn’t stopped any pipelines yet. There were times when I wanted to turn off the volume or fast forward the tape just to escape the monotony.
Also, at times it seems he’d forgotten that he wasn’t running against Justin Trudeau. Perhaps having demolished Trudeau’s character he was now hoping to tar Carney with the same brush. And there was this certain air of desperation – as if this was all he had in his quiver. It seems that in this crisis all he is offering are tax cuts, building more pipelines and exporting more oil.
 Jagmeet Singh was passionate and seemed sincere for the most part. Jagmeet Singh was passionate and seemed sincere for the most part. He jumped in several times to defend Carney on matters of fact, something admirable for a political leader hoping to actually win voters back from the Liberals. But he levelled his own attacks as well. His messages hadn’t really changed since the last election – save health care and do something about affordability. It was as if this were just another election in normal times for him.
Singh’s party can lay legitimate claim to publicly supported health care, and more recently dental, child and pharmaceutical care. Though he was always a junior partner to the Liberals in implementing these social programs. If he had an industrial policy he was hiding it. This may well be his last federal debate as he is fighting for his political life, and that of his party in this election.
 Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet Bloc leader Blanchet was delightful at times in both debates and he made his points well. But he is a parochial regional leader whose ultimate goal is removing Quebec from Canada. He has admitted he’ll never be prime minister and doesn’t even like to speak English in Montreal. The debate commission has come under a lot of criticism for excluding the Greens and Peoples parties. That they continue to give air time to a regional separatist party is almost absurd, though some would say it is just the Canadian way.
The biggest criticism goes to the moderator of the English debate, Steve Paikin. This was supposed to be a debate, not a shouting match. Yet he let Singh and Poilievre cross talk, over Carney’s and over each others’ answers. Excuse me but I wanted to hear what each of the candidates had to say.
The moderator of the French language debate was much better at keeping the debate under control and much fairer to all the debaters. He actually cut off Singh’s mic at one point after Singh went off topic and started ranting about health care funding. Paikin noted that he’d watched the debate in French, but he clearly hadn’t learned anything from it.
Also, Paikin’s time clock for each leader didn’t add up. Some leaders seemed to have far more speaking time than others. Poilievre got the best camera shots, often avoiding the obtrusive podium in the picture. It’s almost like the CBC had forgotten that he’s promising to shut down the network and fire them all if he wins.
 Pierre Poilievre responding to Mark Carney In the end, this election is a contest between the two traditional political parties. Conservative leader Poilievre came across as a smooth talking career politician with little or no business or management experience and with a plan for Canada’s future built on tax cuts and exporting more oil and gas.
Mark Carney on the other hand came across as a rather lacklustre debater who nevertheless comes with a proven record in international negotiation, impressive top level business and public service experience, and a visionary perspective for rebuilding all of Canada. That’s how I saw it anyway.
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background:
French Language Debate –
 By Pepper Parr
April 17th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
Would it be correct to say that politics and sports are a large part of what defines us a country?
How then do we explain to people who are not Canadians, do not live here, that there was an occasion when the country was in the middle of a leadership debate and getting ready to decide who was going to be the next Prime Minister and that the debate scheduled was moved back an hour so the voters could watch a hockey game.
The Montreal Canadiens were scheduled to play against the Carolina Hurricanes in Montreal.
 Prime Minister Mark Carney  The Stanley Cup The Canadiens have their own form of sainthood in the eyes of the French-Canadian population.
So the debate was moved back an hour, the Canadiens went on to win the game which meant they would be one of the teams vying for the Stanley Cup.
With five Canadian teams in the playoffs – there is a decent chance that the Stanley Cup will return to Canada – where it belongs, IMHO.
And again, IMHO, the country will get the Prime Minister it needs and we can watch how he manages an American President who has decided he will annex Canada and make it their 51 state.
This is a country worth fighting for.
 By Rivers
April 16, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
 Ross Perot Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992 had it right when he called NAFTA a ‘giant sucking sound’. NAFTA has not been a great deal for America, or Canada, especially when it comes to the automobile. Between 1994 and 2004 Canada’s share of North American auto production tumbled from almost 15% to just over 8%. The US lost significant market share as well. And Mexico became the big winner – rocketing from barely 7% to over a quarter of all the cars built in this continent.
Donald Trump had ranted but done little in his first term to correct that trade imbalance, ultimately endorsing the USMCA which replaced NAFTA. But once re-elected he armed himself with ‘yes men’ and set out to change the way America operates. And in the on-and-off world of Trump’s import tariffs he has now whacked the auto sector with 25%.
Canada has a long history of auto production. Ford Motors started operations here in 1904, and by 1923 Canada became the second largest auto producer in the world and a major exporter of autos and auto parts. Today we’re not even in the top ten.
So, those autoworkers who are being laid off in Windsor and Ingersoll have more than Mr. Trump’s 25% tariffs to blame. But the tariff threat has put a chill in everyone working upstream and downstream in the auto industry. The mere suggestion of plant closures at Honda put all of Ontario on edge, for example.
 Brian Mulroney It was Mr. Mulroney who killed the Canada-US auto trade pact in favour of his multi-sectoral trade deal with the Americans (NTA). He wrote off the auto pact which had ensured that the big three auto companies would build at least one car for every one they sold here. And then Mr. Chretien brought Mexico into our trade deal and the three amigos created NAFTA…and that giant sucking sound.
Not everyone is crying doom and gloom about Trump’s automobile tariffs. A recent article in ‘Driving’ magazine (see links) in fact, is rather upbeat about the prospects for the Canadian auto industry. To a large extent that is because of the way the Carney government has responded with our own counter tariffs and the provision of support for the Canadian auto makers to minimize the impacts.
 Mark Carney Mark Carney has spoken about re-imaging Canada’s manufacturing sector, and re-engineering our economy. He has referenced the need for public involvement, public-private partnerships and greater foreign investment in rebuilding our manufacturing sector, and especially the auto and defence industries. And he (if he’s still PM) and Trump have agreed to start negotiations next month on sectoral trade arrangements, which will form the backbone of our future trading relationship with the US.
In the meantime Canadians need to focus on our own future. That means doing more of what we have started doing even in the brief moment since Trump’s tariffs were announced – building Canadian, growing Canadian and buying Canadian.
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Giant Sucking Sound – More Perot –
Trump on Trade – Global Car Production – Auto Decline – Upbeat –
By Ray Rivers
April 7th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
“Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession — a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it,” (Former Reform Party Leader, Preston Manning)
 Danielle Smith: Her ‘Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act’ is unconstitutional and borders on traitorous. Danielle Smith has been taunting the federal government ever since she became Alberta premier. Her ‘Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act’ is unconstitutional and borders on traitorous. But now she is out to make more trouble, particularly since the polls no longer show her favourite federal candidate leading.
She recently reached-out to the Quebec government asking them to join her in plotting the break up of Canada as we know it. Unfortunately for her, separation is not upper most in the minds of Quebecers today. They appear to like the idea of a strong federal government to defend their hard won linguistic and cultural rights against a menacing American president.
Besides, that must seem like a strange request from someone who wants to end Quebec’s receipt of national equalization payments because wealthy Alberta doesn’t receive any. And it is even stranger that Smith would offer to go to bed with the province, which more than any other, has stood in the way of her dream of an east-west oil pipeline.
Both Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney have talked about federal-provincial unity and a Team Canada approach to managing the current US trade crisis. Yet Alberta and, to a lesser degree. Saskatchewan are not team players. Extracting even more oil out of the tar sands and their subservience to corporate big oil are their priorities.
It is greed pure and simple. Alberta and Saskatchewan are already the wealthiest provinces, ranking number one and two in GDP per capita. In fact, Albertan’s income per capita is a full third higher than that in Ontario – $78,154 for Alberta compared to $48,971 for Ontario. This huge difference in income is attributable to the windfall of carbon deposits and other minerals that had been given by Canada to these provinces.
The federal government purchased those mineral rights from the Hudson Bay Company shortly after confederation. However, one of Canada’s least popular prime ministers of all time, the Progressive Conservative R.B. Bennett, decided to transfer ownership of all that mineral wealth into the jurisdictions in the prairie provinces.
 Richard Bedford Bennett became Prime Minister after the 1930 election. Bennett came into office just as the great depression had hit Canada. He decided that the best cure for a sickened national economy was to further bleed the patient. Rather than pumping money into the hands of Canadians to keep the economy working, as we typically do in recessionary times, he dramatically cut federal spending and created an unemployment rate which, by 1933, exceeded 30%.
In fact the economy deteriorated to the point that farmers, unable to pay for gasoline, used their horses to pull their Tin Lizzies around, caustically calling them ‘Bennett Buggies’.
 They were called Bennett Buggys Danielle Smith took her war on the federal Liberal party and Canada to Washington and Florida. There she begged Mr. Trump and MAGA Republicans to delay the tariffs on Alberta until after the federal election, in hopes of halting the polling downturn for her pick of PM. She also pushed to have oil exempted from any tariffs.
So when Alberta’s oil, along with other USMCA compliant exports, were exempted on April 2nd, Smith claimed victory for her powers of persuasion. However, as even other conservatives have pointed out – this is hardly win. Neighbouring B.C. was being hit with a 34% tariff softwood lumber; Quebec and B.C slammed with 25% on aluminum, and Ontario whacked with 25% on and steel and the country’s vital auto manufacturing sector.
 Smith is determined to continue to threaten Canadians with separation unless they elect her guy in the federal. Victory lap notwithstanding, Smith is determined to continue to threaten Canadians with separation unless they elect her guy in the federal election. To that end she warned Mr. Carney that the winner of the federal election will have six months to roll out policies friendly to the energy industry or face an “unprecedented national unity crisis.” And she’s followed up that threat by openly talking about an independence panel and a referendum for Alberta.
As an aside, I poked my head into one the local town hall events Chuck Phillips, a Hamilton area Liberal candidate, was holding. At one point someone asked about Preston Manning’s big blackmail statement. Phillips just referenced what Carney, his leader, had said. Calling these dramatic and unhelpful comments he noted….”I am part of a government that governs for all of the country, and very much for the West.”
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Bennet Buggy – Transfer Act – Independence – Seven Richest Provinces – Victory Lap – Preston Manning –
 By Jim Portside
April 7th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
More on that Sunshine List.
The Sunshine List was first released in 1996; it shows Ontario public sector employees earning $100,000 or more. The $100,000 threshold has not changed since 1996. Using the Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator, $100,000 in 1996 is the equivalent of $185,017 in today’s dollars.
 People who made over $200,000 in 2024. Here’s a list of the top income earners for the city of Burlington, people who earned over $200,000 a year in 2024. The 2023 list contained 15 names. The 2024 list also contains 15 names, it’s great that the number of people stayed the same. Some of these people do a fantastic job for the city.
What’s most interesting about the above list is that three of the 200K club members no longer work for the city.
Tim Commisso’s LinkedIn profile indicates he left the city in April of 2024. Sheila Jones – March 2024. Brynn Nheiley – March 2024.
You can read more about Brynn and Sheila’s departures here:
What did these three people cost taxpayers?
The calculations are approximate, but about $600,000 in severance or, in the case of Tim Commisso, payment to the end of his contract went out the door in 2024 for these three people. Mayor Meed-Ward often talks about the city needing funding from other levels of government; $600,000 buys at least one MRI machine for Joseph Brant Hospital.
 Here are some other interesting items from the Sunshine List.
The Sunshine List doesn’t tell us when someone started or left the city’s employ. With that in mind,I looked at all the people who were on both the 2023 and 2024 Sunshine Lists. The average salary increase for this group was 4.31%.
The number of people working for the city and making over $100,000 a year increased by 10.5% to 505. The 2022 list contained 393 names, and the 2023 list contained 457 names.
Of the roughly 1,112 full-time employees, 505 now earn over $100,000 per year.
The 2024 list includes 15 people with the job title “Transit Operator”, up from 9 last year. Keep in mind that this includes overtime. There are 4 people with the job title “Mechanic” and 3 people with the title “Officer, Animal Control”, up from 1 last year.
The six elected councillors had an average income of $118,876.64, down slightly from an average of $119,802.70 in 2023. Councillors over the age of 71 earned less, only making $117,321.96 a year. Councillor Sharman has fought hard to have this corrected, and we’ll see a bump for the senior councillors, Sharman and Bentivegna, in 2025. The municipal employee pension plan, OMERS, has a rule that people over 71 have to start collecting their pension.
A total of 51 people saw their total earnings, salary plus overtime, increase by at least 10%. Only 23 of these people had changes in their job titles.
We’ll have to wait another year to see if Sheila, Tim or Brynn make it onto the 2025 Sunshine List.
Jim Portside is a retired business man who has lived in Burlington for several decades
 By Ron Foxcroft
April 3rd, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
For entrepreneurs and all Canadian business we should be planning for many economic challenges in 2025.
The President of the United States changes his agenda, more often than he changes his underwear.
WE are going to plan for the worst, and strategically have options 1, 2, and 3 moving forward.
Slowly the Republicans will challenge Trump’s motives, but currently they will not challenge him and face his wrath.
They are more concerned about their self interest.
Slowly, a few members of his cult will be hurt and turn on him.
Slowly, Corporate USA will begin to get hurt by his motives, and turn on him.
This entire process will take many months, therefore, Corporate Canada is facing difficult economic challenges throughout 2025.
I am delighted how Canadians proudly have become more united than ever in our history.
United as Canadians we are strong, facing the USA President who is a Bully but when confronted will be a Coward.
Ron Foxcroft is the president of Foxcroft International
By Gib van Ert, Robert J. Currie and Allan Rock
March 26, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Originally published on Policy Options
Late in 2024, the incoming president of the United States, Donald Trump, began calling for the annexation of Canada.
What was first taken as a tasteless joke quickly emerged as a chief plank of the new administration’s foreign policy. On Jan. 7, a reporter asked Trump whether he intended to use military force against Canada – something he had threatened only moments earlier to use against Panama and Greenland. “No, economic force,” Trump replied.
Both military and economic force to annex another country are forbidden under Canadian and international law. Any U.S. takeover attempt already faces serious political and public resistance. But we also have legal and constitutional defences of our sovereignty, to be taken up if needed. Let us hope it does not come to that. But lawyers and judges must be ready in case it does.
Trump’s goal is clear
 Trump repeated his commitment to territorial aggrandizement in his inaugural address, saying: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.” Since becoming president on Jan. 20, Trump has followed through with his threats in the form of on-again, off-again tariffs on various Canadian exports designed to cause severe damage to our economy.
He uses nonsensical justifications for tariffs, but his real goal is clear – the use of economic force to undermine Canadian sovereignty and pave the way for U.S. annexation.
Trump repeated his commitment to territorial aggrandizement in his inaugural address, saying: “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.”
He also invoked Manifest Destiny, the discredited 19th-century American belief in the irresistible spread of its empire across North America.
International law is on Canada’s side
The acquisition of territory by force has been illegal under international law since the end of the Second World War – ironically because of U.S. leadership at the San Francisco conference that drafted the 1945 United Nations Charter.
Article 2(4) requires all UN members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation Among States affirms that no acquisition of territory by “the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal” and no state may use “economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of its exercise of its sovereign rights.”
Why are younger Canadians more susceptible to Trump and the lure of the 51st state?
We live in a dangerous world. Canada needs to bulk up
Donald Trump is changing the political culture of the United States
 The Supreme Court of Canada: a majority are female. This prohibition is also a matter of international human-rights law, specifically the right to self-determination. Of particular importance to Canada, Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically confirms the right of Indigenous Peoples to “freely determine their political status.”
These international norms are also part of Canadian law. They represent customary international law, which the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed forms part of Canadian common law.
This means that the international legal principles of Canadian sovereignty over its territory, the right of Canadians to self-determination and the illegality of foreign acquisition of territory by threat or use of force, including economic force, are rules of Canadian common law that must, in proper cases, be given effect by Canadian judges.
The Constitution assumes Canadian sovereignty
Canadian sovereignty and territorial integrity also underpin our written Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act) vests executive power in the Sovereign, establishes a Privy Council for Canada and continues the command-in-chief of Canada’s land and naval forces in the Sovereign as head of state.
These provisions are irreconcilable with any transfer of executive power from the head of state, as advised by Canadian political leaders, to a foreign power.
Major amendments to the Constitution in 1982 added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the protection of Aboriginal rights and a new mechanism for amending the Constitution without British involvement. Throughout its provisions, the Constitution Act, 1982 assumes, and requires, Canadian independence.
Section 3 confirms the rights of all Canadian citizens to vote in elections for members of the House of Commons and to serve as MPs. The continued existence of the Commons as the elective element of our federal legislature is the essential prerequisite of these rights.
Section 6 declares the right of every Canadian citizen to enter, remain in and leave Canada – a meaningless right without a Canada to enter, remain in and leave.
Part V sets out several ways in which the Constitution can be amended. Capitulation to a foreign power is not one of them.
Finally, Section 52(1) provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and that any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. The force of all the Constitution’s other provisions turns on this one, which empowers Canadian courts to strike down other laws as unconstitutional.
Indigenous rights are also critical
The position of Canada’s Indigenous peoples must also be remembered.
Modern Canada is the product of a series of territorial encroachments and acquisitions by France and Britain in pre-modern times. Canadian courts continue to struggle with the consequences of that history, empowered by the 1982 Constitution’s recognition and affirmation in Section 35 of the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
This process of reconciliation gained new impetus with Canada’s adherence to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2016 and Parliament’s recognition of that declaration as a universal international human-rights instrument with application in Canadian law.
All of this gives legal foundation to an instinct that should come naturally to anyone living on this continent: we are long past the point in our history where Indigenous lands and traditional territories can be swapped back and forth between states without Indigenous consent.
Judicial resistance may be needed
The United States seems now to have turned against the principles it once championed. But those principles remain the foundation of both the international legal order and Canada’s laws.
American attempts to force annexation by economic means are being met with strong resistance from our political leaders and the public. That resistance may succeed and Trump’s dream of making Canada the 51st state may be shattered by politics alone.
But if Canada-U.S. relations so deteriorate that our independence is actively threatened, political and popular resistance may require the support of legal and judicial resistance. The annexation of Canada by a foreign power is manifestly illegal. Canada’s courts must not hesitate to say so.
Gib van Ert is a partner at Olthius van Ert and a former president of the Canadian Council on International Law.
Robert J. Currie, K.C., is the Viscount Bennett Professor of Law in the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University.
Allan Rock is president emeritus of the University of Ottawa. He has served as federal minister of justice and attorney general, as well as Canadian ambassador to the United Nations.
 By Kevin Powers
March 27th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The Hamilton Spectator chose not to publish this opinion piece.
Something as important as the mining of aggregate in rural Burlington deserves all the view points it can get.
No Need for New Quarries? Tell That to the Free Market
Across southern Ontario, the battle over new quarries rages on. Local opponents—armed with “No Quarry” signs and cries of “No Need”—paint aggregate operators as reckless profiteers tearing up the land for no reason. They argue the province has more than enough gravel, sand, and stone to go around, so why approve more pits?
Here’s the flaw in their logic: they don’t understand the basic laws of supply and demand. No operator in their right mind spends millions chasing a new license and risking rejection, unless demand is there—and it is.
 The Jefferson slamander was the major obstacle when the first application for an aggregate license was turned down. If there were an oversupply, you’d see it—prices crashing, pits shuttering, companies bailing. That’s not happening. The Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association pegs annual consumption at 164 million tonnes, and the number of licenses has dropped by 28 since 2013. Operators aren’t flooding the market; they’re scrambling to keep up. The free market doesn’t lie—businesses don’t risk millions on a hunch when gravel’s piling up unsold.
Opponents might mean well, worried about dust, noise, or nature. Fair enough—nobody wants a quarry next door. But crying “no need” defies economic sense and assumes operators are either dumb or masochistic. They’re neither. They’re businesses, not charities, and they’ve got data—construction forecasts, infrastructure plans, population trends—telling them the juice is worth the squeeze. If they see demand drying up, they’re not going to risk millions of dollars trying to bring on new supply.
The irony? By stalling new quarries, critics could choke the very growth they take for granted—roads they drive, homes they live in. The Greater Golden Horseshoe is not swimming in aggregate; it’s rationing a shrinking stash.
The Aggregate Resources Act doesn’t ask for a “market need” test because it trusts the market to sort itself out. Maybe it’s time opponents did too. Operators aren’t the enemy here—they’re just reading the room. If there’s no need, they won’t dig. But the numbers say otherwise, and the free market’s already placing its bets.
 By Staff
March 27th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
 Kevin Page: head of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa. Kevin Page, former parliamentary budget officer and head of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy at the University of Ottawa, said in an interview this week that the economy will not collapse but Canada is likely to face a recession due to Trump’s tariff wars.
“The geopolitical uncertainties could have a worse impact,” he said.
“It’s not just that the stock markets get rattled. It’s also that people start to feel that it’s going to get worse. And then everybody slows down. Everybody stops spending.”
However, he said, the bigger picture of the government’s finances shows Ottawa can weather the storm ahead and is in a position to support the hardest hit sectors and workers.
“Our debt to GDP numbers are better than other countries, much, much better than the United States. So we could provide that kind of shock absorber if — depending on what happens — it can help Canadians. So in that sense, like, you know, we have some built-in resilience.”
 By Staff
March 27th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
What’s with the Liberal surge? Recent Grit switchers say it’s driven by Carney, Trump’s threats
Vote commitment among new Liberals far less solid than those who stuck with party through lows of 2024
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune suffered by the NDP and Conservative Party of Canada in recent months have reversed the fortunes of the Liberal Party – at least for now – leaving many to wonder how we got here.
After leading comfortably in the polls for the better part of two years, the Conservative Party of Canada now faces an upward battle to regain even ground against new Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberals.
What happened?
 New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute provide some answers to these questions. Asked what their main reasons have been, voters who have switched to the Liberals since the beginning of the year, more than half (56%) say they are motivated by the new leader, Carney, about the same number who also say U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats have pushed them to support the incumbents. Three-in-10 (30%) say they believe the Liberals are the best way to prevent a Conservative government and this is one of the driving factors.
Where did they come from?
Among these “switchers” the largest group say they were formerly supporting the NDP (35%) while slightly fewer have jumped from the CPC (29%). A significant portion (16%) were undecided, while importantly, 12 per cent were Bloc Québécois voters, and have improved the Liberals chances in Quebec by their decision to swap.
And why?
One of the motivating factors is the elevated concern over U.S. relations and the threat of tariffs. Among those who have switched to the Liberals and those who supported the party before this year, more than half say that this issue is a top one for them, personally.
This is approximately double the level of concern for that issue among non-Liberal supporters.
By Ray Rivers
March 26th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The premier of Alberta, washing her dirty political laundry before US right wing podcaster Breitbart, was bad enough. But what she really meant by her comments may have been worse. Was she telling the US president that his tariff threats might prevent her guy in Canada’s federal election from becoming the governor of Trump’s planned 51st state?
 Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith “Offensive and wrong” was how Danielle Smith, in full Trumpian fashion, responded to allegations of foreign interference. And indeed, this would only be something like foreign interference if her plea to Mr. Trump is answered. So we’ll see how the American president responds come April 2nd, when the 25% blanket tariff is supposed to kick in.
And we’ll see whether the unofficial leader of the Alberta separatist movement has the political capital to sway that big fellow in the White House. After all, she has spent enough time in DC talking to the movers and shakers in his administration – and taking all those selfies with Donald and Kevin O’Leary. By the way, O’Leary, the nasty Dragons Den investor, comes off sounding like the 51st state was really his idea before Trump made it his own.
Of course even if Trump decides to delay the tariffs, as Smith has asked, this would not mark the first time foreigners have tried to meddle in our politics. Big powers with a significant emigre base seem to find Canada a suitable target. China has its hands dirty from the mild – paying cash for access – to more serious – sponsoring their preferred candidates for office. They typically picked on the Liberals, likely thinking Trudeau would be an easy mark.
 Conservative MP Michael Chong But Conservative MP Michael Chong also felt the ire of the Chinese government when he voted to condemn Beijing’s genocide of the Uyghur minority. He was barred entry to China and became the object of threats and an intimidation campaign against his family back home. Pursuant to a 2023 CSIS report, a parliamentary committee concluded that the Chinese government interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections.
There is also a civil war being played out in Canada between the Sikh and mainstream Indian communities here. And one of the battles is taking place within the ranks of the Conservative Party of Canada. Patrick Brown, former Ontario PC leader and mayor of Brampton used to be adored by Indian PM Modi. But his support among local the Sikh population has made him anathema to the Indian leader.
So when he ran for leader of the federal Conservatives, Indian agents operating in this country apparently did their best to sabotage his campaign and throw money and support into the waiting hands of Pierre Poilievre’s supporters. CSIS couldn’t find a smoking gun though, and Poilievre has taken the ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ defence. So he and his entourage may not have been aware, as incredible as that sounds.
 Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre And who knows whether this Indian affair had something to do with Mr. Poilievre’s refusal to get a top secret clearance. Its unfathomable how someone who is planning to run the country won’t be able to receive national security briefings. For example, how would he know if someone in Alberta had contacted a foreign enemy to get them to influence the outcome of a Canadian election?
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Danielle Smith – O’Leary – Chinese Interference – More Chinese Interference – Indian Interference – Patrick Brown –
  By Tom Parkin
March 24th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
No one’s ever accused Mark Carney of being middle class. But the former Toronto investment banker’s proposed “middle-class tax cut” includes ultra-high income earners like him.
The Liberal leader launched his campaign promising a “middle-class tax cut” that gives top benefits to millionaires and billionaires.
Carney’s plan would reduce the tax rate of the first tax bracket by one point, from 15 to 14 percent.
That generates a $574 benefit to anyone with a taxable income over $57,375 and right up to the top income earner. Those earning less than $57,375 would get a smaller benefit.
In 2015, Justin Trudeau also promised a “middle class” tax cut, but one that came with an off-setting tax increase on income over $250,000. That off-set cancelled any benefit once income exceeded about $263,000.
But with no offset in Carney’s plan, even the highest income earners in Canada are included in Carney’s “middle class” tax cut. The maximum $574 would be paid to Galen Weston, Chip Wilson, the Irvings, or the Thompson family. And Mark Carney.
Tax payable on a taxable income of $30,000 would be reduced by $300 and tax payable on $50,000 would fall $500.
While anything is helpful for low-income Canadians, bolder steps like the national dental care program deliver much more impact, saving a low-income family of four $1,809 a year, according to 2024 budget documents.
class=”header-anchor-post”>Carney kills planned tax hike on capital gains over $250,000 a year
 Prime Minister Mark Carney Today’s pledged tax cut for even the richest Canadians comes after Carney cancelled Trudeau’s plan for two-thirds of capital gains over $250,000 a year to become subject to income tax, up from half. Half of the amounts up to $250,000 a year would continue to go tax-free.
Capital gains are the amount earned from buying then selling capital assets, such as company stock, and are treated differently than employment income in tax law.
In recent research paper in Policy Options, tax experts using 2019 tax filer information found the entire benefit of Carney’s cancellation would flow to just 46,705, or 0.16 percent, of tax filers. That group had an average income of $1,183,157 in 2019.
For 99.86 percent of Canada’s 29 million tax filers, there would be no benefit from Caney’s tax cancellation.
In 2027-2028, cancelling capital gains changes is projected to be worth $1.8 billion to that very small pool or investors earning more than $250,000 a year in capital gains. The amount saved is projected to rise to $2.3 billion in 2028-29.
On starting at the Bank of England in 2013, Carney was being paid $1.4 million a year. Seven years later, Carney left to join Brookfield Asset Management, an investment bank with $1 trillion in assets that owns everything from privatized hospitals to local utilities and real estate.
Carney served as Brookfield board chair, resigning January 16, 2025.
Last week, a US corporate filing by Brookfield Asset Management shows Carney and two other executives together earned $4 million in salary, $3.5 million in cash bonuses and $67,439 paid to retirement savings contributions and Brookfields’ executive medical program.
The $7,567,439 total, if averaged between the three executives, would be $2,522,479 each.
Despite his ultra-high income, Mark Carney has included himself in his “middle-class tax cut.”
Brookfields’ 10-K filing also shows Carney held 409,300 Brookfield share options on December 31, 2024. On Friday’s close, Brookfield stock traded at $53.65. But Carney’s options let him buy those shares for the deeply discounted price of $37.54.
If Carney exercised any share options on Friday, he would’ve earned $16.11 per share, the difference between the $53.65 market price and the $37.54 option price. If he exercised all his 409,300 share options on Friday, he would have earned $6,598,823.
While stock option income is usually treated as a capital gain, and therefore only half taxed, earnings from stock options received as employment compensation are employment income and must all be included as income. However, the employee stock option benefit deduction parallels the capital gains inclusion rate, delivering the same effect, a detailed topic for a future date.
By Ray Rivers
March 23, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
“There is no baby without a mother, no Sideshow Bob without a Bart, and no Pierre without a Justin. It was all Destrudeau, and Mr. Trudeau has left the building. I guess that’s why Pierre Poilievre seems – well – broken”. (JILLIAN HORTON SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL MARCH 14, 2025)
 Canadians are experiencing something akin to buyers’ remorse, and are deserting the Tory leader instead. Pierre Poilievre has lost his mojo. Over the last two years he has broadcast how badly Canada is broken and how it’s all Justin Trudeau’s fault. But times have changed, and now is not the time to tell Canadians that their country is broken, even if that were true – which it’s not.
Second this rant that Trudeau must resign and kill carbon pricing – a tax that benefited lower income Canadians – is somehow the scourge driving up prices of everything, has worked. So now, that old adage “be careful what you wish for” has come around to bite the pretender to the throne. Trudeau and the consumer carbon tax are no more.
But rather than piling on gratitude, Canadians are experiencing something akin to buyers’ remorse, and are deserting the Tory leader instead. So our Pierre Poilievre is left wondering what to do given that the emperor’s new clothes have left him naked. Well here are some suggestions:
- Stop being so nasty, so angry – such an attack dog. End the negativity and the ad hominem ads and personal attacks. Those tactics, though disgusting, may have been effective when you were the opposition leader. They worked to alter how Trudeau was seen, his credibility, and the public trust in the sitting PM. But also remember how those kinds of nasty ads worked for Kim Campbell.
- Promise not to deprive Canada of our national and time-honoured broadcaster, the CBC. At few times in our history was a national news media as critical for this country. Canadians deserve to be better informed than what they’ll get with alternatives like social media, or worse yet, fringe media like Rebel. Don’t follow the example of the US president, who has excluded major news media from his news briefings simply because he doesn’t like what they report.
- Show Canadians that you actually have an organized plan to govern. What are your plans for the economy and the environment? It’s not enough to be opposed to carbon pricing and emission caps without offering a fully costed alternative. Explain how your the notion of even more business subsidies to reduce greenhouse gases will work, and how it would impact your other goal of slashing the deficit. How would your plan to respond to US tariffs differ from what is currently being prosecuted?
- Be clear about your intentions regarding our newly acquired additions to the social safety net. Would programs you once mostly opposed in opposition – like child care, pharmacare and dental care – be on the chopping block?
- Clarify whether you are really going to fire the Bank of Canada governor as you once promised to do? And clarify if you are serious about making bitcoin cryptocurrencies an alternate official currency, thus making Canada the ‘blockchain capital of the world’ as you had once promised? Can you explain how crypto would make Canadians’ lives better?
 Poilievre is articulate and a compelling opposition spokesperson for his party. These are troubled days and Canadians are looking for unity and purpose in a leader, not more divisiveness and negativity. Poilievre is articulate and a compelling opposition spokesperson for his party. But as leader of his party in a moment of national crisis, he isn’t telling us what we need to hear. Rather he just repeats the same tired old meme – that he will fight for Canada – or stand up for Canada – or some other flag waving meaningless platitude. And this is not the time for platitudes.
Mr. Poilievre has been caught off guard by his own success, that is true. But nothing is more important to voters than a road map telling us how he’ll keep the country and its economy secure. In this time of insecurity Canadians are not likely to elect a man without a plan? Or was the man who has spent his entire life planning to be PM just a one trick pony – the axe-the-tax man.
Seriously, the carbon tax has been axed, give it a rest. Mr. Trudeau your chief political opponent has left the building. And you have nothing new to say? One has to ask, is there really no Pierre without a Justin?
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
No Pierre without Justin – Now What – Conservatives Media Access –
BlockChain Capital – Rebel News – Subsidy- Right Wing Media – Industrial Carbon Pricing –
 By Tom Parkin
March 18th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
After the unchecked speculation peak in 2022, a new marketplace stand-off has builders refusing to build while buyers refuse to pay. We’ll see who blinks.
 John Maynard Keynes’ sarcastic quip that “markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent” appears to have a new twist in the Ontario housing market, three years after unchecked speculation led to soaring prices then market implosion.
Buyers are refusing to pay more despite falling borrowing costs, lower prices and slow construction, all factors that could rationally be expected to spur an increase in house prices in a province with a massive pent-up housing demand.
The benchmark house price for the Greater Toronto Area was $20,000 lower last month than February 2024 and remains $239,900 below the price peak of March, 2022, according to data released by the Canadian Real Estate Association released today.
February starts just 33 per cent of Ford PCs’ target
Despite price declines of the past 35 months, the GTA benchmark house price remains $316,900 (42 per cent) higher than when Doug Ford became premier.
But though market prices are significantly higher than just a few years ago, it appears they now aren’t high enough to cause builders to build.
The Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation also reported data this morning showing just 4,100 housing starts in Ontario during February, a 37 percent tumble from February 2024. February’s starts were only 33 percent of the 12,500 monthly target needed to meet the Ontario government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force recommendation.
Data on building construction investment released by Statistics Canada today shows that while investment in Ontario multi-unit residential construction is now only seven per cent lower than the peak set in October 2023, investment in single dwelling construction has collapsed 41 percent from its peak in September 2022.
Industry blames Trump, but data signals the problem is the price
 Just how much can be blamed on Trump’s tariffs? The real estate industry’s explanation for market inactivity is the uncertainty caused by Trump’s tariffs, as buyers worry about their incomes or wait for falling economic growth to cause deeper interest rate cuts.
Without a doubt that holds some truth over the past month or two. But not the past year or two.
The simple explanation is that Ontarians, absent the panicked and irrational fear of missing out, refuse to pay prices they cannot afford.
Unreasonable rents continue to leave little room for saving. Purchase prices remain very high.
Other data provides more evidence of a consumer problem. Statistics Canada retail data shows, that despite higher sales elsewhere in the country, Ontario retail sales remain lower than in spring 2022. Ontario’s unemployment is higher than the national rate. GDP data shows spending on items like furniture and home renovations are down.
Of course, conceding that prices are still too high is probably not something the real estate industry wants to say out loud. Deflection is preferred.
Ford’s political opponents failed to make the case
And others want to move on, too. The Ford PC government took action to check housing speculation, allowing the GTA benchmark price to increase $556,800 (76 percent) in just 45 months.
 Building trade unions might be upset if they weren’t so busy counting the tens of millions of dollars they have been receiving from the PC government. The price surge and implosion lie squarely on Doug Ford’s head, as does the economic destruction it caused, which goes beyond housing. Real estate implosions always do.
Unfortunately, it’s a story the opposition parties failed to piece together for Ontarians, allowing the lackluster PCs to coast to an undeserved majority with which they will continue to fail on affordability.
The industry’s refusal to build until prices rise is itself probably costing billions in lost economic growth and tens of thousands of construction jobs. Building trade unions might be upset if they weren’t so busy counting the tens of millions of dollars they have been receiving from the PC government.
The Ontario twist on Keynes’ observation seems to be that industry will remain unproductive until demand turns irrational. Then we go round again.
By Ray Rivers
March 16th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
 Rene Lévesque, who later created the Parti Quebecois, was the most influential minister in the Lesage Liberal government during Quebec’s ‘Quiet Revolution’ of the early sixties. Rene Lévesque is credited with the phrase ‘Maîtres chez Nous’ – used as a justification for nationalizing American energy companies which had once dominated Quebec’s energy scene. Lévesque, who later created the Parti Quebecois, was the most influential minister in the Lesage Liberal government during Quebec’s ‘Quiet Revolution’ of the early sixties. And his phase is revered by Quebecers.
Mark Carney, Canada’s new PM, has used the phrase on several occasions, presumably to appeal to Quebec voters, but also to signal that under his watch this country will not be subservient to, and be pushed around by our American neighbours. That Carney is making waves among potential voters can be seen by the reaction from the separatist and oxymoronic Bloc Quebecois federal party, worried about inroads into its Quebec base.
President Trump has made it clear that tariffs are coming and here to stay. And that means Canadians need to look for other markets for their exports. And we also need to focus on import substitution as an alternative to buying from the USA. Today, for example, we import over two billion aluminum beer cans made with Canadian exported aluminum.
 President Trump has made it clear that tariffs are coming and here to stay. Trump used to own a casino or two, so one needs to be wary playing cards with him. Premier Ford embarrassed himself, his province and the country when he tried to bluff without an ace up his sleeve. President Trump was holding the high cards and he called Ford’s hand on his 25% energy surcharge for US states.
Trump threatened to double down on the steel and aluminium tariffs and Ford buckled, folded his hand, and left the table with egg on his face. The surcharge was withdrawn and Ford was taught a lesson. Stay in your lane – international trade blackmail is for the big boys.
Ford may get high marks for scrapping Elon Musk’s ‘Starlink’ internet system, once planned for northern Ontario communities. But what about the $26 billion contract he signed for four the US based GE Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactors for Darlington? These reactors, once operational will need to be on a steady diet of imported American enriched nuclear fuel.
Meantime, Atomic Energy Canada now AtkinsRéalis, is dying to sell its new CANDU MONARK, an advanced CANDU reactor design which uses Canadian made uranium pellets. CANDU is the current technology that gives us half of our electricity in Ontario. Of course, we’d likely not need these new nuclear power plants if Ford hadn’t shut down the province’s renewable energy programs.
Ford’s slap down by the US president should inspire prudence as this country responds to the American trade war. Any response to US tariffs will be seen as retaliatory, but whatever that response it needs to be about benefitting Canadians and not just punishing the Yanks. That discussion starts with a withdrawal from the already broken USMCA.
 Former Prime Minister Mulroney sold the economic benefits of the free trade agreement (FTA) to Canadians on a song and a prayer. Former Prime Minister Mulroney sold the economic benefits of the free trade agreement (FTA) to Canadians on a song and a prayer. Canada’s GDP per capita, our national productivity rate – our economic standard of living – compared to the USA was 90% back then, just prior to the FTA. Today it has fallen to 65%, and our exchange rate has tumbled to under 70 cents.
Instead of making us better off, forty years of FTA, NAFTA and USMCA have just made us more reliant on the US as a trading partner. And the real beneficiaries are the transnational corporations that can relocate production from one country to another to take advantage of lower labour cost, less red tape, lower taxes, and tariffs. They are the real winners of free trade.
Canadian productivity has bounced up and down a few times since Mulroney but no matter how one looks at the statistics it is hard to make the argument that these free trade deals have been a win-win for Canadians, even in the good times. And these are not the good times as we head into a trade war led by the would be imperialist living in the White House.
Bottom line is that we’d be no worse and possibly better off if we had ignored Mr. Mulroney’s dream of an FTA. Instead, we should have done what the PM is telling us we need to do now – take control of our economy by becoming more self-reliant. But we will never be ‘Maîtres chez Nous’ so long as we are ‘free-trading’ with the elephant next door.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
GDP/Capita – Maîtres chez nous – Bloc Objects –
By Staff
March 12th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
60% of Americans say they have no interest in Canada joining, 32% say only if Canada wants to
U.S. President Donald Trump continues to escalate his trade war and annexation rhetoric this week, leaving economists, commentators, and even supporters wondering about his motivations.
 New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds Trump’s repeated threats to make Canada the 51st state out of line with the views and opinions of his own country and voters. Asked about this idea, three-in-five Americans and 44 per cent of Trump voters say they have “no interest” in seeing Canada join the U.S. Further, one-in-three Americans and 42 per cent of Trump voters say they would only be interested if the idea was supported by Canadians.
It isn’t.
For the second time in 2025, Angus Reid Institute finds nine-in-10 Canadians saying they would vote ‘no’ to joining the United States if given the option.
Amid continued threats, more than half of Canadians now think Trump is serious about this (54%). In January, just one-in-three (32%) felt this way. South of the border there has also been in increase in the proportion who feel Trump is serious, but to a smaller extent, rising from 22 to 34 per cent.
One notable domestic dynamic at play is the higher number of current Conservative Party supporters who would vote ‘yes’ on this question, and the implications of the expected federal election. At present, one-in-five would-be CPC voters say they would vote yes, compared to almost zero Liberal (2%), NDP (3%), and Bloc Québécois (1%) voters. Angus Reid Institute asked those Conservative supporters if they would change their vote to join the U.S. in the event of a Liberal majority in the next federal election and found a 12-point increase in yes voters, up to 33 per cent.
By Ray Rivers
March 10th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
My opponent, Pierre Poilievre, is a lifelong politician who worships at the altar of the free market, despite never having earned a paycheque or made a payroll. His reflex is always to cut and destroy. (Mark Carney)
It was an impressive victory for Canada’s new PM designate on Sunday. All four candidates were clearly qualified for the job but Liberals voted overwhelmingly (86%) for Carney. After all, these are troubled times. Canadians are feeling threatened and insecure because of the economic and political assault from south of the border.
In a crisis, the public generally prefers electoral stability and the status quo. And that tends to work for incumbents. It’s why Doug Ford, who has a miserable record in managing the province but cast himself as captain Canada, won his election so convincingly. And he has not disappointed in his defence of the province and country.
 Churchill became British PM as WWII was underway and Roosevelt was elected for an unprecedented third term when it became clear that the US was about to enter the war. What Canada needs now is competence and experience, not a political attack dog, as it navigates the path we’ve been forced onto. Globalization is dead, and so is USMCA/NAFTA. Canada needs to rebuild our national economy and that will require public as well as private investment as we strive to once again make and buy Canadian.
 Brian Mulroney Blame Brian Mulroney for selling out our industries in the hope that some kind of free trade deal with the US would make us better off. But that deal was made some forty years ago and most Canadians believe it had been working – until now. But that experiment in the economic theory of comparative advantage hollowed out our manufacturing sector, leaving us little choice but to become as reliant on trade in raw materials as were our forefathers – hewers of wood, and drawers of oil.
Surrendering our once robust manufacturing sector has made us vulnerable to the vagaries of international markets, as we saw with the supply issues and the ensuing inflation during the pandemic. The US and Europe have also realized this, perhaps one of the reasons all EU members have still not ratified the Canada/EU trade agreement.
And now Trump is completely overturning the gaming table and tearing up USMCA, all the while whistling America first. But this is not a game. Trump is determined to end non-tariff access to US markets, in the interest of returning manufacturing jobs to America and using tariff revenue to finance his promised income tax cuts.
The US president is not likely to change course now and has already warned the US public to expect inflation and a recession as they experience this transition. And Canada’s transition threatens to be even worse without proper guidance. Then there is all the other nonsense pouring out of the Donald’s mouth – the hostility and the expansionist threats that is unnerving Canadians and all of America’s one time friends and allies.
 It was a happy night for everyone – will we see a repeat in the next 60 to 90 days? So over 150,000 Liberals cast their votes for a new leader in response to the public’s demand for a change from Mr. Trudeau. And they put their fate in the hands of someone with impeccable credentials and very credible skills at a time when this country needs exactly that kind of leadership. As Carney said in his victory speech, Canada needs a strategic plan to deal with the inevitable fallout from the end of free trade, not political slogans.
Trudeau gave one of his best speeches as he stepped down. He was positive, gracious and passionate and sat emotionless as he watched the new leader designate promise to end Trudeau’s signature carbon tax. Still, Trudeau’s best moments came in his two recent addresses to Canadians outlining Canada’s immediate responses to Trump’s 25% tariffs. I have never been prouder to be a Canadian as I watched our prime minister stand up for Canada in no uncertain terms.
Canadians will likely be in an election in a matter of weeks. Some will complain about having an election in the midst of a crisis. But we survived a federal election in the midst of the pandemic and the recent Ontario election was held in one of the coldest and snowy winters in recent memory. And given the political temperature on Parliament Hill, we should expect the federal election closer to April than its October due date.
 Kim Campbell  John Turner Kim Campbell and John Turner provide a case study of the perils for a governing party changing horses at the last minute before a horse race. Hopefully Carney will learn from their mistakes. Canadians demanded turning the page on its PM and his priorities for the country – and the Liberal Party has responded.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Tariff War – Trudeau on Tariffs
 By Staff
March 10th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
Doug Ford made the comment and opinion section of the Washington Post: Ontario’s Doug Ford is channeling a national backlash to the White House.
Noah Richler, writing in the comment and opinion section of the Post said:
Donald Trump knows the value of a good external enemy to unite his nationalist base, and — for reasons that might baffle even some of his staunchest supporters — Canada has taken on the role. With Parliament in abeyance following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation, and with the country’s reputation for civility, Trump probably thought Canada would be an easy target to bully. What the U.S. president didn’t count on, however, is the nationalism he would prompt in Canadian politicians more than happy to use his playbook against him.
 Doug Ford, the right-populist Ontario premier who has captured the prevailing mood with an uncompromising resistance of his own. Enter Doug Ford, the right-populist Ontario premier who has captured the prevailing mood with an uncompromising resistance of his own, with steps ranging from pulling American-made liquor off shelves to threatening the United States’ power supply. “If they start hurting families anywhere in Canada, especially Ontario, well, the lights are going off,” warned Ford, who come Monday will be imposing a 25 percent surcharge on electricity exported from Ontario to some 1.5 million homes in Michigan, Minnesota and New York state. He’s been unrelenting even after Trump delayed many tariffs, demanding they go to “zero.”
From the very first moment of Trump’s Canadian excesses — the ridiculing of the prime minister as “Governor Trudeau,” the talk of Canada as a “51st state,” a covetous eye cast toward our wealth of minerals and water, threats to abrogate border agreements, and ultimately the yo-yo game of tariffs — Ontario’s resolute premier has been proactive about retaliating and the need for the country to act as one.
“Ford Nation,” the less-incensed predecessor of the MAGA movement that brought the premier to power for the first time in 2018, has lost the moniker but is now a much larger force. Even in my own household — I ran (unsuccessfully) for federal office back in 2015 for the left-wing New Democratic Party — we find ourselves buoyed and validated in this utterly discombobulating fight by Ford’s steadfast resolve, this very Canadian quality the great Nova Scotia poet Alden Nowlan once described as “stubborn disinclination.”
 Canada beats the American team. Hockey is a metaphor for just about anything in Canada, and Ford is our enforcer, the tough guy who’s not the best skater, who’s not on the ice to score, but is ready for a scrap and to protect those who can. You want him on your side, this guy in the corner with his elbows up. He might throw an errant punch now and then, but a good enforcer makes his presence felt, and Ford has done that. To wit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick personally urged him to back down in a phone call and failed — another point scored.
Noah Richler is a Canadian author based in Toronto.
By Tom Parkin
March 6th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
More than a third of Conservatives don’t want Canada to retaliate against Trump’s tariff attack.
Donald Trump today launched an economic war on Canadians and has pledged to annex Canada as the 51st state, but a third of Conservatives think Donald Trump is pretty darn swell, according to an Angus Reid Institute poll released this morning.
Continue reading Despite attacks and threats, a third of Conservative voters favour Donald Trump
By Ray Rivers
February 21st, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The clock is ticking for Liberals to vote in a ranked ballot online starting February 28th to select Canada’s next PM. Among the finalists will be the two current members of Parliament, Chrystia Freeland and Karina Gould. Both of these candidates, as former Finance Minister and former Government House Leader respectively, can share some of the credit and/or accept blame for the governing Liberal record going back to 2015.
Freeland’s platform now disowns some of that record though she had served as Trudeau’s number two. She would axe the carbon tax and cancel the increase in capital gains taxation. Freeland also proposes imposing a 100% tariff on Tesla electric cars and bribing Canadian doctors and nurses to return here to work. Burlington’s Gould is promising to cut the GST to 4% for one year, enhance employment insurance and initiate a guaranteed income program.
Former MP Ruby Dhalla was disqualified as a candidate for the leadership of the party on a unanimous vote by the leadership and expense committees to drop her from the contest.
Dhalla served with Paul Martin and pivots to the ‘right’ of the party, proposing to deport ‘illegal immigrants’ and slamming drug users with life sentences. Baylis, a Montreal businessman, would limit senators and MP’s to 10 years in office. And among other ideas he’s also keen on recognizing a Palestinian state.
 Mark Carney speaking to Liberals in Hamilton. But the heavy betting is on former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney. Carney played a key role in navigating Canada through the 2008 global economic downturn and as Bank of England Governor helped that nation through its Brexit transition. He held a UN post as climate envoy and had previously served as special advisor to Mr. Trudeau. However, Carney sees himself as an outsider, never having held a parliamentary seat. But he has brought a breath of fresh air to the Party, which as the polls tell us was in critical need of a re-set.
Carney has racked up the greatest number of Liberal Cabinet endorsements to date. Recent polls indicate that as leader he could bring the Liberals back from a double digit lag to a dead heat with Mr. Poilievre’s opposition Tories. That is something that has brought fear and panic into the Conservative camp which had been ever so keen to capitalize on Trudeau’s plummeting popularity. And that means Carney needs to watch out for dirty tricks. In that vein social media trolls falsely posted that Carney’s recent meet and greet of Liberals in Vancouver was AI doctored to create the illusion that the crowd was bigger.
Carney is an economist but he knows the campaign of disinformation and lies about carbon pricing has poisoned that economic instrument, so it is destined for the history books. He plans to introduce a middle income tax cut to compensate for loss of the carbon tax rebate, however. Carney plans to run a balanced budget regarding government spending though he has not ruled out borrowing for infrastructure projects which would benefit future generations.
Mostly Mr. Carney needs to attribute the climate of economic uncertainty Canadians are now facing for much of his growing popularity. US president Trump’s economic war on Canada starting with tariffs on some of our most important exports has this country on the defence. And Canadians would prefer to see an experienced professional at the helm rather than someone like Mr. Poilievre, who has almost never held a real job outside of working for the Conservative Party.
 Rivers, upper right (where the red dot is) covering Mark Carney during a speech he gave in Hamilton earlier this week. I was invited to one of Mr. Carney’s meet and greet meetings in Hamilton recently. He addressed the crowd in a soft spoken, sincere tone, without bashing his opponents. I found that a refreshing change from the dynamics of what we’ve seen too often in Ottawa politics. Let’s hope it continues.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Liberal Leadership – Carney – Karina Gould – Dhalla –
|
|
By Ray Rivers
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
