Recently the news media reported an outburst by White House firebrand Peter Navarro warning Canada not to interfere in mid-term elections. A bemused Carney appeared to laugh this off.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/yellen-says-trump-appalling-on-us-allies-backs-retaliation

These comments appear in contrast with statements by former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen who served under the previous Biden administration.

Specifically, Ms. Yellen stated:

"it’s important for Canada and other countries not to accept this (Trump's treatment) lying down and to retaliate."

From a diplomatic standpoint such statements add context to Navarro's statements regarding non-interference, that Carney could be indirectly supporting the Democratic Party in battleground states. To be clear, there is no official correspondence, meetings, or statements to this effect that could be located in the public domain.

However, the Liberals previously showed in targeting Florida orange juice that they were seeking to use political calculations to direct their trade actions. Similarly, the recent dollar-for-dollar retaliation appear to be targeted at battleground states in the mid-West and Great Lakes region.

The downside of this is entirely at the expense of Canada. If Trump retaliates, it could be with tariffs facing Canada and especially directed at Ontario and Quebec.

The price of diesel and other inflationary pressures are having an impact on Trump's popularity in battleground states like Iowa. However, diesel prices are more the consequence of the War in Iran and the War in Ukraine rather than the trade war with Canada. In fact, Canadian energy was specifically excluded from tariffs that has targeting primarily Canadian manufacturing including steel, aluminum, automotive, appliances, electronics, forestry, and other industries.

Recently US Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer said: we are getting what we need from Canada.

That is to say, Canada could be in a safer position both economically, fiscally, and diplomatically versus the troubled waters into which Mr. Carney is intentionally navigating the ship of state, by ensuring a far clearer separation from US domestic politics.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/why-is-mark-carney-hiring-americans-for-the-pmo

At face value, were I, for example, to be Prime Minister, one would maintain a studied distance from involving themselves in foreign politics. Recall, it was Justin Trudeau who had similarly engaged in such activism that invited the wrath of Trump. In that case, Trudeau gave a campaign style speech in the USA about their border wall policies.

We see that the Carney Liberals have not yet learned the lesson (to Canada's misfortune) and continue to deviate from the norms of international diplomacy.

If Trump becomes a lame duck President after the mid-terms, it's better he would fall on the Iran issue or any issue with Canada being able to claim complete innocence. On the other hand, a wounded Trump still has considerable power to damage Canada for two years on the way out employing the considerable powers of the Presidency to control foreign policy.

This points to a continuing tactical mistake on the part of the Carney Liberals.

This author on the National Post begins with the faulty premise that: hating Trump is natural.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joel-kotkin-hating-trump-is-natural-destroying-canadas-future-to-get-back-at-him-is-borderline-insane

Mark 5:44. "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

If we can't conjure love for Mr. Trump then at the minimum to avoid entertaining the mind virus of hate. One should always be objective to prevent heady emotion from precipitating bad choices and rash decisions.

Let me quote Aristotle courtesy of Legally Blonde: the law is reason free from passion.

It's not that globalist banker Mr. Carney is a jingoist. But rather he took the advice to poke the buttons of Canadians to stoke this frenzy. The Trump induced temporary insanity.

The very word trumps reason and stirs up the cauldron of passion.

--

"Trump, and disdain for the U.S., has provided the impetus for Prime Minister Mark Carney, the quintessential globalist advised by individuals connected to the Democratic Party back in the states, to adopt a faux nationalism that has proved a big winner among Canadians."

--

Some may not have made the logical connection that a globalist cannot also simultaneously be a jingoist. It's like oil and water. The faux nationalism is more of a dog and pony show.

On the other hand, Kotkin's point is correct that we should not align with Europe or China as an alternative. I don't disagree with trading more, but aligning with Europe is to imbibe of Europe's failures and make them our own.

18-25% VAT. 50-60% income tax rates. Regulation that ensures the death of opportunity.

The serfs of Europe are straining under the yoke of the Brussels agenda.

There was a very good reason the UK left the EU. And I know a lot about Brexit and why bankers like Carney wanted to stay in, but almost no one else did.

Ever since then "dear Mark" has charmed the hearts of the Brussels bureaucrats. He'll spend $100 billion on submarines and orphan lifecycles we don't need. It's music to the ears of Brussels. Dear Mark, you can visit anytime.

Meanwhile, I said before my discussion with Ms. Van Der Leyen would be more along the lines: the EU needs Canadian oil and gas. Europe's consumers should access our resources at lower prices by giving waivers to all new regulations on the use of such energy for the Canadian projects in question - for the next 40 years.

Furthermore, Europe should put up 85% of the cash for 49% equity stake in the project.

Ms. Van Der Leyen may not smile, but she should realize this is in the best interests of Europe. And rather than MoUs, I would expect to return with signed agreements and defined tranches of funding being released.

Were our EU partners to have a reasonable discussion, I am more than amenable to such constructive engagement with our friends.

The trade war with Trump is not about a few wheels of cheese. It's not even about automotive or manufacturing.

What is it really about then ?

In a word: immigration. And more generally the current addiction of the Canadian economy to funnel FDI through the real estate system backed by unsustainable expectations of mindless sprawl and low vetting.

When Trump was screaming about fentanyl. It had to do with drug money laundering, as the tax haven status of real estate as well as weak oversight in the financial system invites funds with dubious provenance to be laundered through the Canadian property market.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5102137/us-canada-major-money-laundering-country/

If housing is unaffordable, it's the direct consequence of this addiction. It's not a supply problem. It's demand rigging and easy money that is competing with the hard money of sweat and tears. The hard earned money of the Canadian worker doesn't have a chance.

Carney is beholden to the very interests that want to keep the current system hurtling on its unsustainable track, which is the foremost threat to national security.

Caroline Rogers said it best: there is a productivity emergency. This is code in polite society for: immigration is way too high we need to pull the brakes now. Of course Rogers can't say the latter. That sort of directness is too much for the sensitive ears of the general public.

It is only after I realized that every politician be it Liberal, Conservative, NDP, or Green is bought and paid for regarding the "productivity emergency", that it became clear. There was no choice but for me to run for office.

That Canadians need someone who can't be bought, who has clearly declared goals, to fix the country. And I can do a way better job than Carney on every metric.

Poilievre can't be counted on. Talking he can do. Walking the talk is another matter. If he were to come to power, he'd just be Liberal lite on immigration.

That's why I gave people a hard number 15,000. So now you know. It won't be Carney's type of jerry rigging as what happened recently. The government lied that population had dropped when it had increased. Such lies engender distrust.

https://thehub.ca/2026/10/01/300000-missing-people-in-statistics-canadas-population-estimate-reveals-weaker-economy-than-previously-realized/

Excuse me, we can't use the word "lie" in polite society either. Let me rephrase. Such prevarications, inaccuracies and calumnious retroactive revisions of stated metrics undermine confidence in the official narrative.

No no wrong again. Maybe I'll hire Caroline Rogers as my communications advisor if made Prime Minister. She knows how to say this succinctly: Productivity emergency.

Which brings me to the next point. Could I get a deal with Trump where Carney can't.

Yes, there is a 50-50 chance I can get a deal with Trump where Carney can't. Because I have a feeling Trump's sticking point is actually on immigration. Since I don't have the same constraints as Carney, I am bargaining against different parameters.

EU "associate membership", I don't put much stock in. Carney's big spending also I doubt.

Instead, I am promising each Province and territory 1 project of national significance at cut rate prices. For example, Vancouver and Toronto will get new transit systems. Alberta will get an oil pipeline without any grift for $3 a barrel transportation charge.

For the rest of the Provinces and Territories they will bring forward proposals which will go through public consultation and separately business case review by the Minister of Finance.

This is the key. There has to be a business case. Unlike Carney's Alto Train. It must work towards sustainable development and be approved by the public.

Tim Huston's giant windmill project off the Nova Scotia coastline will just wreck the pristine Nova Scotia coast. We need to preserve the natural heritage of Canada.

This is where my judgement as Prime Minister is important. It's not just whatever idea the Premiers bring forward. But they can bring forward a dozen proposals, we'll go through them and approve one or ask for more proposals until a good idea emerges.

Furthermore, it has to be private build-own-operate basis. This is not just about giving the Premiers cash to go have a party. The project has to turn into an operating benefit that materially improves the regional economy.

These are the judgement calls I can make as Prime Minister. I'll get the right people to say it in the right way as polite society expects.

Recently, the world quality of life rankings were published in which Canada dropped to 19th place. One spot behind the United States. The Canadian healthcare system was ranked #28 in the world and natural environment #63.

In the 1990s, I remember the Government of Canada had run ads that showed Canada was #1 in the world for quality of life. If population growth was the answer, it sure isn't registering in the Key Performance Indicators around citizen's well being, where we have now fallen out of the top 10.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/canada

I have long argued that naive calculations around the GDP are misleading because economists are counting every dollar of government spending to the GDP and ignoring deficit spending. This is giving politicians a license to spend.

Imagine that we have two economies:

Economy 1:

GDP output = $1 cars + $1 food + $0.1 government paperwork

Economy 2:

GDP output = $0.1 cars + $0.1 food + $1.9 government paperwork

According to economists, Economy 1 and Economy 2 are the same - both having a GDP of $2.1. However, Economy 1 will have far less inflation, far greater affordability of basic goods. For the obvious reason that it is producing supply of things people want.

Therefore, naive GDP calculations should be questioned. If they are overcounting paperwork as part of the GDP shell game, is that really progress ?

It's per capita real GDP, median earnings, along with Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) that determine average economic well being. On these metrics, Canada is going sideways.

And then there are general quality of life indicators like health care, infrastructure, unemployment, opportunity, and education. Here too, we have been backsliding since the 1990s.

In the last 25 years, the population growth mantra has not improved conditions.

As Einstein said: the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results. If population growth has made things worse, why continue on this trajectory at all ?

Consider the birth rate boogeyman. Our goal should be to increase affordability. If the cost of living is so high that it's unaffordable to have children then it is to be expected that birth rate would be depressed.

The answer is not more immigration which depresses wages and fuels inflation. It's the opposite, drop immigration to 15,000 and increase affordability for Canadians, along with domestic incentives to maintain population.

This is not the agenda of the Central Canada elites who want an easy way to sell one more cell phone subscription. That's a lot easier than innovating or increasing productivity.

However, in the process we are doing the Central Canada elites a great disservice. Were the population held constant. Then we would create an incentive for the CEOs to have to come up with a better mousetrap. They can't rely on the crutch of population growth to skate by to that annual bonus any more.

It was Caroline Rogers who said Canada has a productivity emergency.

And we are not turning this around by the population growth model.

Carney cancelled the Trudeau government's EV mandates but has tried to sneak in from the backdoor the same mandate in the form of vehicle emissions standards.

https://driving.ca/column/motor-mouth/carney-trump-us-fuel-economy-standards-cafe-trade-war-trucks-tariffs

In this article, we review how the Trump administration has rolled by the Biden administration's emissions standards from 50 mpg to 35 mpg.

The author argues for Carney to use emissions standards as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the Trump administration.

I disagree with this fatuous recommendation.

Those of us who know about the Canadian car seat law will be aware the US car seats have a different standard. Making a different car seat for the Canadian market has meant prices for the Canadian consumer have increased.

Politicians are treating standards like a toy. That industry is a fairy godmother that can just make a 60 MPG ICE engine appear out of thin air. Even advanced vehicles like Toyota Camry hybrid return fuel economy around 50 MPG.

Such 50 MPG was the floor for the "average" fuel economy required by the Biden administration and emulated by the Liberal government.

This creates a problem when one accounts for heavier duty vehicles like pickup trucks.

Instead of creating arbitrary standards, governments can sponsor research to advance capabilities and let capabilities define standards rather than the other way around.

Some say that politics is the art of the possible. However, politicians don't seem to know this. They seem to think that politics is the art of imagining utopias.

If government were to mandate that processors operate at a minimum of 500 Exahertz operating frequency, that doesn't mean that the laws of physics are suspended by imperial decrees.

If only it were so easy, scientists and engineers could have taken a backseat to let politicians build castles in the air. If politics is the art of the possible, then science and technology are the parametric constraints that rigidly discriminate realism from pipedreams.

In this article on the Financial Post, William Watson argues the economy would do better "driverless".

https://financialpost.com/opinion/canadian-economy-would-do-better-driverless

The author argues for a laissez-faire economics model, which is about letting the economy operate with minimal intervention.

There was a misleading narrative going around Reddit that Carney was a conservative or neo-liberal. I previously debunked this narrative by pointing out that Carney is using an economic model called dirigisme where government effectively picks winners and losers, while operating a selective subsidy economy.

Such an approach is inconsistent with neo-liberalism which advocates: privatization, free markets, deregulation, free trade, and low tariffs.

The philosophy of neo-liberalism was behind rise of organizations like the WTO and the impetus for globalization that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union that led to communist economies such as China being inducted into global trade after a previous period of trade isolationism.

Carney's policies in Canada are not neo-liberal, even if he has imbibed globalist proclivities at the wellspring of the WEF, the policies of the Liberal Party are still embedded in lobbyist influenced selective market intervention.

For example, privatizing airport leases to build a money losing Alto Train. This is not from the neo-liberal playbook that would have eschewed adding a government run business unit. Rather such policies originate from the internal political dynamics that are shaped by lobbyist influence that Mr. Carney is beholden to.

This is where we have to understand who someone is working for, what their restrictions are, and therefore why they take certain actions.

As an example, I'm an independent considering a run as independent MP for the riding of Brantford. I have no lobbyist associations and advocate for conscience held policies.

Therefore, I can be against airport privatization on the grounds it harms consumer affordability. Had for example, a lobbyist with a vested interest in the decision made a political contribution, then these funds act to influence political positions.

Although all parties must rely on some donations to fund their operations, the notion that policies are bought and formulated through lobbyist influence creates a patchwork of incomprehensible positions.

On the other hand, outlining policies first, and then accepting donations especially those from many smaller independent and private citizens, allows the political party to stay anchored in a public interest mandate based on principles.

I advocate for the latter.

Coming back to Watson's argument, the government's role is to maintain operational flexibility while retaining regulatory and fiscal levers to keep a socio-economic system operating in a stable and healthy state.

As an example, airport operations delegation to independent not-for-profit operators also serves as such a complexity reducing exercise.

The free market is not quite a free market. The key to a free market is a level playing field, choice, and fair competition. In many cases such as domestic monopolies or in foreign subsidies, the competition may be on uneven footing with regards to market participants.

Where such monopolies harm overall economic output, deter the optimal use of the resources, and entrench a power imbalance, there is both a rational and ethical imperative for regulatory oversight which is embedded in principles such as anti-trust and anti-competitive scrutiny of the market environment.

Also under the purview of regulation are public interest objectives, hidden costs, moral hazards, and unquantified liabilities that the economic system does not account for in the calculus of supply and demand.

This has been one of the motivations of the carbon tax and cap-and-trade movement. However, the arbitrary nature of these schemes have led to them becoming another tax without effecting any meaningful benefit on carbon demand or carbon emissions.

I have argued against using market tools to quantify arbitrary parameters like Co2 emissions on a selective basis, advocating instead for incented abatement.

For example, rather than hosting a costly bureaucracy for cap-and-trade, take actions to directly reduce Co2 emissions like my homeowner rooftop solar program or mass transit buildout in major cities.

Laissez faire economics in its worst form advocates for the government abdicating its entire responsibility to address legitimate extra-market policy goals.

However, where Carney errs is in continuing the same ethically dubious, lobbyist fueled, fiscally reckless spending of the Trudeau Liberals (with essentially the same party, MPs, ministers, and political culture).

Here we get into the difference between theory and practice. Mr. Carney's degrees of freedom and my degrees of freedom are fundamentally different.

Why can't Carney do what I would do with regards to cancelling Pathways. Because he has previous obligations to Brookfield. I have no such obligations.

Why can I sponsor an independent arm's length competition for transit in GTHA and Vancouver. I have no obligations to SNC Lavalin or another domestic service operator.

Therefore, in determining what is possible. It is not only necessary to examine the experience and proclivities of a politician such as Mr. Carney, but also their political restrictions.

What is separatism in Alberta about?

Long story short: they're paying in but not getting proportionate political clout. Furthermore, they are smarting after losing an election they were supposed to win.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stephen-harper-separatism-poses-significant-risk-for-alberta/wcm/2579ed99-4a9a-43a5-bc90-25f1c7582ab7

The view amongst many is that the election was stolen by the arrival of Carney and the Eastern Canada elites used their control of the media to parachute in Carney when it was Western Canada's turn to have a go.

Meanwhile Carney does not meaningfully address Alberta's concerns. His Pathways project heaps added costs for little meaningful gain to the climate. The glacial speed and high transportation tolls per barrel continue to depress WCS prices at Hardisty, Alberta.

Albertans want a new deal.

The separatist referendum was a way for them to get back some political clout and feel heard. If recent polls are to be believed there is about 30% support for separatism.

I do empathize with Albertans - but I also realize they are hanging their forlorn hopes on Mr. Poilievre.

Let's use a hockey analogy. Back in the day, I was a huge Leafs fan. This was the early 2000s. There were guys like Mats Sundin, Darcy Tucker, Gary Roberts. They also got Ed Belfour and Joe Nieuwendyk.

And every year the Leafs would make the playoffs and then either beat Ottawa or lose to one of Philadelphia, New Jersey, or Carolina.

One of the issues with being a fan, is one is unable to make an objective evaluation. As a Leafs fan, I couldn't see at the time that the team just wasn't good enough. Had I been able to see through my irrational devotion to make a more objective calculation, I would never have gotten emotionally invested in a foregone conclusion.

Albertans are like me in the early 2000s. They got their heart settled on Poilievre but haven't thought through with their heads whether Poilievre is good enough to win.

As I look back on the last election, the main reason the Conservatives lost was due to Poilievre. The latter just couldn't close the deal. And it had nothing to do with Trump.

It had to do with another "T" word: trust.

There was insufficient trust in Mr. Poilievre's leadership.

In truth, I voted for Mr. Poilievre. And those who know, I unequivocally supported him during the last election. This predates my arrival here on Reddit.

If we look at the electoral map, Mr. Poilievre was shutout on the doorstep of the GTHA. He's offering nothing on health care. Nothing on transit. No policies on the tech or innovation.

It's just the same tired refrain of whining about the Liberals. But no actual solutions.

Many posters on here don't like me holding Carney and the Liberals accountable. However, I always present an alternate policy.

Here is what they are doing wrong, why, and here is what I would do differently.

We actually have a plan that can work and is in fact far superior to Carney and the Liberals. Poilievre's platform looked like a highschool book report. And he was circumspect on many issues.

As a retail politician, going out there and giving speeches before a sympathetic crowd, Poilievre might do ok. It's on overall strategic vision that he earns a failing grade. And that is the Achilles Heel of the Conservative Party today.

Until Alberta realizes this, they will continue to be like me in the early 2000s. A devoted fan, who cannot understand why their team continues to lose. And I am offering Alberta an option.

If Brantford sends me to Ottawa as an Independent MP, then Alberta should get behind my candidacy for Conservative leader. I'll get you way more than Poilievre, because I know how to get things done. I have always been for the oil and gas industry and I'll get the rock bottom price that cuts the transportation tolls. It's not just about pipelines, it's getting the project done at the bottom dollar to get the lowest price of conveyance to get the WCS discount down.

Albertans know what I'm talking about.

Mark Carney has imposed a complex system of quotas to try and shore up the steel sector. And in the process the Liberals are actually making it harder for the steel industry to adapt.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-steel-plants-crying-steel-stelco-layoffs

“There isn’t a buyer of hot-rolled steel that is getting close to what their needs are. We are all short steel,” Butch Mandel, chief executive of Concord, Ont.-based Welded Tube of Canada Corp., said.

This shortage of hot rolled steel is due to arbitrary quotas as imposed by Mark Carney and the Liberals. The following excerpt describes the complicated steel quota regime:

In Canada, countries that lack free trade agreements are limited to 20 per cent of the steel volumes they shipped here in 2024, above which a 50 per cent tariff kicks in. Free trade countries can ship 75 per cent of their 2024 volumes before triggering a 50 per cent tariff. Canada also applied a 25 per cent tariff on a broad swath of products that are largely comprised of steel.

Carney is supposed to be an economist but appears not to know anything.

Markets are dynamic, quotas and governments are not. The demand for hot rolled steel could change on a dime. But Carney's quota is rigidly fixed to a 2024 date.

Furthermore, it creates this problem of trans-shipment and inefficiency where various countries may try to skirt the rules.

In a word this is the opposite of market efficiency.

What would I do ? First we should have a flat tariff for steel from all countries without a free trade agreement. And this number should be rationally determined. There should be no quota.

Having one flat tariff for all countries outside an FTA prevents trans-shipment and simplifies the paperwork.

Furthermore, a maker of steel pipes or steel beams can offset this tariff using their manufacturing tariff credit. This eliminates the shortage of raw material that is currently afflicting the sector.

The simpler and more predictable the tariff system, the more flexibility the market has to adapt while leveraging the machinery of globalization. The tariffs function as an incentive for domestic value addition by allowing those value adders to offset them with labour and depreciation based credits.

It creates conditions which favour domestic production but not to the point of suppressing competition.

International supply of steel can bring down prices and moderate inflation, while making it easier for industry to adapt to a new configuration.

A more rigid configuration with quotas and high tariff walls creates downstream supply bottlenecks and increases input costs to higher value manufacturing such as automotive.

To address issues like dumping, there can be transitional lending assistance where industries formulate business plans to reorient themselves in the current market environment.

This retains those competencies without relying on protectionist barriers to maintain their business case.

Today is the national day for Truth and Reconciliation in Canada which recognizes the contributions of indigenous peoples and some of the historical harms they have faced.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-indigenous-spending-quadrupled-to-40-8b-under-trudeau-with-negligible-improvement-to-communities

In this article on the National Post, while federal spending on indigenous communities has sky rocketed to $40 billion there has been limited impact in terms of improvements in the life on reserves.

One of the major sources of improvements has been the Canada Child Transfer which is a non-indigenous general program that relies on direct transfers to individuals.

There are roughly 1.5 million indigenous persons in Canada. Which means roughly $26,667 is transferred for every man, woman, and child of indigenous origin in terms of the high level program allocation but not all of this is reaching the front lines.

Where is the money going ?

As usual it is the bureaucracy. The government run public system is struggling to scale. Therefore only pennies on the dollar reach the front lines by the time the funds have run the byzantine gauntlet of administrative overheads that plague large public programs.

As a consequence, I have always favoured a direct transfer system where a greater portion of the $26,667 should be transferred to individuals directly.

Canada has a patchwork of policies with regards to how reserves operate. For example, reserve governance is not standardized. This patchwork of governance makes standardized transfers less efficacious and highly inefficient.

On the other hand, direct transfers with powers of taxation would allow reserves to levy and collect taxes. As for example, municipalities do.

If we think about $26,667 per capita transfer. A family of 4 indigenous person should be pulling in $100,000. But clearly the system is not delivering $100,000 worth of services, otherwise indigenous quality of life should have caught up to the same standard as the general population.

Given the massive expansion in budgets, we could transfer as much as 50% of the existing budget as direct transfers to individuals. This would give the average indigenous person around $13,000 of direct funds, while maintaining reserve transfers in line with the budget as it was under the Harper administration.

If what the National Post is implying is true, we should consider reallocating a portion of the present budget to direct transfers so the funds bypass the bureaucracy and immediately reach the frontline.

White House advisor Peter Navarro earlier had an 'outburst' over Canadians sending lobbyists to K-street, and similarly warned against election interference in Michigan.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/carney-laughs-off-trump-trade-adviser-telling-canadian-lobbyists-to-get-the-hell-out-of-u-s

When asked of Navarro's statements that Canadian lobbyists "get the hell out of the US", Carney appeared to have something of a gleeful chuckle.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7363196

If there were 50% tariffs and job losses facing industry, rising prices, and inflation we wouldn't know it from the Prime Minister's jocund disposition.

What should be done in this instance ? This is a serious matter which requires careful statecraft. That perhaps one might not want to laugh down the counter party's key advisors.

To be fair, Navarro is a bit of a blow hard.

But.

What's at stake. A little laugh at Navarro's expense ?

For example, I am calculating that this little humiliation might lead to Trump adding another 1% on the tariff.

If anyone comprehends what that means to the economy, they would not laugh. Clearly Mr. Carney does not comprehend the damage these fits of mirth can do.

Furthermore, Trump has advised of a January 1 timeline for 50% tariffs on auto to take effect. There is an effective outright ban on motorcycles into the US.

One should comprehend the gravity of the situation.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7330939

Carney here talks about how the US had French language right up until the last minute in their proposal.

Rather than vindicating Carney, it actually points out the total amateur hour in how he oversaw the discussion.

For example, my opening call with President Trump with respect to such a trade talk would set the parameters of the deal, which Mr. Carney appears not to have done.

Here is what I would say to President Donald Trump, if Canada hired me right now to be Prime Minister:

Mr. President.

Canada and the United States are two partners who have demonstrated through our post-war history the tremendous benefits of neighbourly cooperation and good will in advancing trade, travel, security, and people-to-people contacts.

Our view is that this matter with respect to the United States trade position primarily concerns two issues. One is the imbalance of trade and net capital flows, and second the need of the US government to address the deficit absent a national sales tax as exists in most countries.

While there may indeed be such an imbalance in other relationships, we do not believe there is any evidence to show an imbalance in Canadian trade or capital flows. When we consider FDI, energy, materials, services, and manufacturing, the bilateral relationship is not only balanced, but even favourable to the US in its present configuration.

Therefore, in our view, this matter primarily hinges on agreeing to a CUSMA deal which effectively had a 0% tariff baseline at present to a different number. Our hope is the number does not exceed 10% and perhaps a number closer to 5% might be the goal. And whatever the number, it would also be reciprocated on the Canadian side along with manufacturing tariff credits that would substantially reduce such tariffs for Canadian importers having Canadian payroll and manufacturing in value added industries.

In my view, departing from the CUSMA framework that you yourself have negotiated is impractical. As Prime Minister, there are considerable limitations on what is politically feasible.

Our hope and goal is a flat and broad tariff that avoids selective and punitive treatment of particular industries creating a patchwork of incomprehensible tariff rates with no coherent rationale that would be a nightmare for business and industry to decipher.

Such a system would create in the process a complicated and costly bureaucracy that acts as its own tax without adding any value for the American consumer or industry.

May I therefore suggest that the substance of trade negotiations focus on a flat tariff inclusion rate and the question before the trade negotiators really be which industries are included and excluded from the flat tariffs and what the rate should be set to. And that we would use the previous CUSMA agreement as a template without introducing any new parameters as that is the proven framework for a workable bilateral relationship.

White House firebrand Peter Navarro had some choice words for Canadians.

"If you’re on K Street, get the hell out of our country..."

https://nationalpost.com/news/a-trump-advisers-outburst-and-a-new-poll-suggest-canadas-tariff-strategy-is-landing

K street is a lobbyist bastion in Washington D.C. where various interests seek to curry favour with elected officials to drive forward policies.

Navarro was warning Canada to not get involved in the mid-term elections in battleground states like Michigan.

Polls are showing that tariffs are registering with Americans and the rise in prices is having an impact on public opinion. This has nothing to do with Canada. High prices and especially the rise in the price of gas over Iran, have lead to discontent.

But I agree on Navarro's point that Canada should maintain a studied distance with regards to US domestic politics and electoral cycles.

For example, Carney and Doug Ford should definitely not meddle or interfere in their election cycle.

Previously, when Doug Ford ran the Reagan ads in the US, I knew from long experience that it was inappropriate for foreign political leaders to start buying mass media air time to seek to influence domestic public opinion.

That Trump retaliated by raising tariffs shortly thereafter was no accident.

There is a certain diplomatic license that certain elected officials in Canada take with respect to America, which should not be taken, as it contravenes established diplomatic protocols.

Imagine that a Republican Governor of Texas were to take out an ad, and use Louis St. Laurent's videos and voice without permission to air mass media broadcasts in Canada to build support for their policies. And worse, they were to do so in coordination with the Trump administration.

How would Canadians feel about such an act ?

One should always put themselves in someone else's shoes to determine if this is appropriate conduct.

Carney is in an unfavourable position with respect to the negotiation after "walking away". If he walks back to the table, the Americans will put forward the same bad deal that he had almost agreed to.

They have him in checkmate position. The hare was caught sleeping.

The only recourse is for Carney to fall on his sword. Get Leblanc and Champagne aside. Appoint me to the Senate and make me Minister of Everything to negotiate the trade deal.

My first act will be of course to claim that Leblanc was incompetent and we need to reset the relationship. It will have to be Leblanc who takes the blame. I can't blame Carney would still nominally be my boss in such a circumstance. But one of the conditions of my leadership would be that Mr. Carney no longer gives any further speeches, or embarks on "associate memberships" or other side quests without prior agreement and instead total radio silence be maintained from the PMO.

Furthermore, if the trade deal is not possible then getting tariffs dropped more in line with Mexico's position to reduce the damage, while we wait out a long siege.

Of course Alto Trains and other massive liabilities don't help Canada. So a lot of the lobbyist pork will be on the chopping block as I rejig the finance. This is why minimum of Finance, Trade, and the CBSA would need to be my portfolio.

Both Minister Champagne and Prime Minister Carney are seeking recourse with respect to Cleveland Cliffs - the owners who acquired the iconic Stelco operation in Hamilton in 2023. The transaction was overseen by then Minister of Industry, Mr. Champagne.

https://financialpost.com/news/carney-says-workers-have-been-betrayed-by-steelmaker-stelcos-layoffs/wcm/ffb10fe7-e104-48ed-a005-971d19c7c479

Long seen as a symbol of Hamilton's blue collar roots, the steel industry has powered the city's economy historically.

The idling of the plant and the loss of 350 jobs is leading to consternation over the future of the city's economy and workforce.

Now Carney is talking tough about holding Stelco's owners up to their legal obligations.

Of course, Carney and Champagne likely have no legal case, because the government walked away from the talks that led to the 50% tariffs. Most legal contracts have a clause called "force majeure". And this could be one of those cases of force majeure of large scale disruptive forces outside the reasonable anticipation or control of a party when entering into a contractual obligation.

Also, the fact that Carney's government walked away from the talks, would be compelling evidence that they have exacerbated the fiscal woes of the company.

But of course I am not here to advise Cleveland Cliffs as to their legal strategies. And I have never reviewed or seen their contracts regarding unionized workforce retention commitments.

This is political theatre on the part of Carney more than an actual legal grievance. An actual legal grievance would be the Gordie Howe Bridge on which the Prime Minister has already capitulated costing taxpayers $7 billion in debt repayments that should have been recouped before revenue sharing agreements were to take effect.

As you will recall, I advised this Prime Minister to stand his ground and contest the matter in the courts. Instead, he chose the path of least resistance.

In this article, the former Minister of Finance, Joe Oliver argues that a commercial relationship with the US needs to be analyzed through calculation and not emotion.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-needs-focus-vital-interests

The Laurentian Elites, the WEF, and the EU were agog in starry eyed wonderment, when "dear Mark", elocuted his grandiloquent outpourings at the WEF.

Meanwhile, Canadians are being hit with 50% tariffs as Professor Carney jet sets the world in pursuit of the mantle of Albert Schweitzer.

This is where Canadians need a more practical leader. As I am. One not as prone to performative melodramatizations. One who is a little more calculating, while always grounded in the bread and butter issues of affordability, jobs, and better life outcomes for Canadians.

Were Carney actually doing something rational, I would give him considerably more slack. And copying my idea on accelerated depreciation about a year after I gave my shadow budget right here on Reddit - might count as a win. What I object to is the marketing hype over a relatively minor accomplishment, which could have been effected far more quickly.

For Carney this is the centerpiece of his achievement as Prime Minister. For me, it's a part of a comprehensive package of tax reforms, as part of a detailed set of policies which work together to change the game for Canada in terms of achieving high performance.

Where Carney is going off the rails to invite my criticism is the spending excess. $100 billion on a money losing Alto train, while privatizing the airports to raise infrastructure costs, is fundamentally at odds with the direction Canada needs to go.

For example, I want to cut infrastructure costs, increase uptime and reliability of key ports, rail, pipelines, utilities, airports, roads, telecoms, and banks. These are the structural elements of critical infrastructure that power the economy. Improving their performance delivers system wide gains.

One of the reasons I strongly opposed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation was that it went in the opposite direction of where Canada needed to be in operating the most productive and reliable infrastructure, bringing costs down, and increasing speed.

Carney appears to be copying my playbook but badly so. The Major Projects Office isn't the vehicle I would have used. With my background, I believe in direct facilitation. It means as Prime Minister along with my Ministers we would personally supervise 5-10 major projects. This includes getting into the operational weeds of monitoring specific elements of project execution.

That's not to say we are running the project, this is still private proponents and experts in charge. However, the government is more carefully supervising and coordinating itself to support and prioritize the needs of project teams.

Differing from Carney, my strategy is not try to be all things to all people, but focus on the real difference makers that unlock business value at an ecosystem level and massively crash the costs and time to get it done.

In an earlier side by side policy comparison, I specifically excluded projects of national significance from my far more restrictive TFW policy for this very reason. Namely, reserving the degrees of freedom on these major projects to complete them quickly, at the best quality, and for rock bottom dollar to maximize value.

The positions that I take are not just a platform drummed up to read the tea leaves of fickle public opinion. These are longstanding positions from before such ideas were even in vogue.

Coming back to Carney.

In seeking to take Canada into the arms of the EU, the Prime Minister, has not shown us where the $900 billion of trade will come from. Ok the LNG expansion is $1 billion. Where is the rest of the $899 billion ?

We aren't talking about spending $900 billion which the Liberals have already demonstrated they are more than capable of doing. It's about bona fide private sector trade to the tune of $900 billion, which is an entirely different story.

Joe Oliver gets to the heart of the question of our relationship with the US. Is this a matter of agreeing to a number in a commercial relationship. And if it is a number, I stated my position yesterday, we get a flat number and it applies in both directions, but our number will be lower due to the Green Lane Manufacturing credits.

It's the importer than pays the tariff. And I want low tariffs to begin with to support consumer affordability, as well as business competitiveness.

Today, the policies as proposed by the Trump administration are too complicated. No one knows which tariff codes apply and don't apply. Not industry. Not customs brokers. And not even the Trump administration.

That's why I took the position, this is too complicated. This is a can of worms. Let's keep it simple. There is a flat tariff rate. And ideally it's a number of 5% and at worst 10%.

Furthermore, the tariff should exclude oil and gas, as well as agriculture.

I am amenable to removing GST/HST levies at the border for business to business transfers, instead requiring that business self report the GST/HST in their filings.

And finally, the water should not be muddied up with any issues that were always excluded from FTA, NAFTA, and CUSMA.

If the Trump administration is seeking a deal, then issues like Supply Management, or trying to change banking rules in Canada, or bringing up French language requirements - such issues fall outside the purview of the trade discussion.

Fundamentally, I see the issue of tariffs as a need to raise revenue and correct structural trade imbalances. However, not every trading partner has a structural trade imbalance and the Canada-US relationship is balanced in the net flows of capital and trade.

Therefore, I see the matter between Canada and US primarily as the need of the US government to raise revenues in the absence of GST type consumption tax.

What we can agree is that on softwood lumber and supply management there is a quid pro quo. That there are two different systems between the countries. And that a separate quota be administered for lumber and supply management.

Based on what Carney has told us, and we haven't been told much, he never established any constraints such as I have above to define what is the scope of the discussion. Furthermore he promptly went off to Tuscany on vacation.

This is where I have a fundamental disagreement. The CBC and the Laurentian Elites with their yachts in Monaco and siestas, prize their holidays.

But I come from a gritty entrepreneurial background. Where the responsibility is on my shoulders. During my stint on Bay Street, I went two years without taking a vacation.

When there are situations which demand attention. When one needs to get a result, there is a certain focus and dedication that is required that the Laurentian Elites frankly don't understand.

Furthermore, as Joe Oliver argues and I have said all along. Carney is going out of his way to poke, prod, and provoke. The GlobalEye "custom platform" or the Rafale jet fighter are classic situations where Carney is overruling the military for what might be political reasons.

Maybe the reason is to poke Trump. Whatever limited satisfaction is reaped from such schadenfreude, the costs and loss of capabilities are irrational. This is where we need to keep our heads and not engage in knee jerk reactions.

And that is where it matters if you have a gritty gladiator like me or a theoretical professor like Carney in walking into a trade discussion. Let's keep the matter focused on the issues.

Let's not muddy the waters or embark on unskippable side quests.