Thank you. Wayne. I am not an economist but thanks to your explanation I understand the shift in thinking that Mr. Carney is bringing to the federal government. Again, I am so grateful that Mark Carney is our Prime Minister. The world economy has become a large poker game and we need his knowledge and experience to play our hand.
II do not get the Conservatives in Alberta and elsewhere. We have the Conservatives to thank for selling off Petrocan, and missed out on owning the gas and oil industry, for most part, and we missed the chance to develop like Mexico did as the owner of our own resources. By the way, the Alberta provincial government also consumed the "Rainy Day Fund" that was set up from the oil patch revenues. I immigrated first to Alberta and married an oil patch guy. Why do we not refine our oil here, but let others do it in the USA? Why do we let foreign companies eat our profits and play us for fools? How dumb are Canadians? By the way, are you Mark's brother?
As a fifth generation Canadian, you pretty much stated truth about how a lot of union people who used to be NDP voters have switched their allegiance to the CPC. Not understanding that every conservative government that we have had since Prime Minister Brian Mulroney have almost destroyed our country’s ability to stand on its own. The biggest mistake that was ever made was the signing of the first free trade agreement with the United States. These “free trade agreements have always been we give to the United States who takes from Canada“. Every federal CPC government that we have had have done more damage than good. Here is an example of what Prime Minister Stephen Harper did to Canada during his time as our Prime Minister.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tenure (2006–2015) fundamentally reshaped Canada, with critics pointing to several major areas where his policies caused significant and long-lasting damage. Environmental Rollbacks & ScienceMuzzling Scientists: The Harper administration implemented strict communication protocols that prevented government scientists from freely speaking to the media or public about their research. Dismantling Protections: His government cut funding to environmental programs, weakened the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol. Critics argue this set back Canada's climate change policies by a decade. Democratic & Institutional NormsCensoring Information: Scrapping the mandatory long-form census in 2011 compromised decades of demographic, social, and economic data, leading to the resignation of the Chief Statistician of Canada in protest. Proroguing Parliament: Harper faced widespread criticism for controversially proroguing (suspending) Parliament on multiple occasions to avoid political accountability and potential votes of no confidence. Omnibus Bills: His government frequently used massive, thousand-page omnibus budget bills to push through contentious, non-financial legislation with minimal debate. Economic & Industry DecisionsEliminating the Wheat Board: The Harper government ended the 76-year-old single-desk marketing system of the Canadian Wheat Board, forcing Western Canadian farmers into an open market and stripping them of their collective selling power. Foreign Investment Deals: He was criticized for ratifying the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), which critics argued tied Canada to lopsided terms for a minimum of 31 years. Indigenous RelationsLegislative Overreach: The government's unilateral push for the First Nations Education Act and the passing of Bill C-45 (which altered environmental protections on Indigenous lands) sparked massive pushback, fueling the birth of the Idle No More movement. Critics argue these policies set the nation's relationship with Indigenous communities back significantly. While supporters often praise Harper's steady handling of the economy during the 2008 financial crisis, detractors maintain that his hyper-partisan governance, austerity, and centralization severely weakened Canada's democratic institutions and environmental safeguards.2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was ...Jul 30, 2020 — 2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was an economic tragedy July 30, 2020 | Terry Boehm Canadian Wheat BoardCanadian Wheat Board (CWB), Farm Income,www.nfu.ca Harper sneaks through Canada-China FIPA, locks Canada in for 31 ...Sep 12, 2014 — In the world of official government announcements, a two-paragraph media release sent out in the late afternoon on the Friday before Parliament resumes sitting ...The Council of CanadiansPrime Minister Stephen Harper highlights government's 2012 ...Dec 14, 2016 — News Release 31 December 2012 Ottawa, Ontario Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement highlighting some of the government's significa...Canada.caStephen Harper's legacy: Good, bad and a dose of uglyOct 20, 2015 — 'I can't even get my friends to like me' Stephen Joseph Harper, of course, never set out to be lovable. He always knew he would rile the nabobs of the establish...CBCStephen Harper - WikipediaStephen Harper * 1 Early life and education * 2 Political beginnings 2.1 Reform Party MP (1993–1997) 2.2 Out of parliament (1997–2001) * 3 Opposition leader (20...WikipediaThe administration of Stephen Harper, 2006–15 - BritannicaMay 16, 2026 — The administration of Stephen Harper, 2006–15 * Home * History & Society * Science & Tech * Biographies * Animals & Nature * Geography & Travel * Arts & Culture...BritannicaHarper's 10 Year War on First NationsJul 16, 2015 — Harper's 10 Year War on First Nations July 16, 2015 by Pamela Palmater Pamela Palmater is a Mi'kmaw from Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. She is a l...The Harper DecadeCONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT OF ...CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT OF ... * Placing party Logos on Government of Canada Cheques Public spending announcements which are government activities were branded ...Centrist Party CanadaBusiness Brief: How Harper helped Carney Feb 3, 2026 — Paying it forward Stephen Harper's decade in office reshaped Canada's trade architecture in ways that are proving vital to Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose eff...The Globe and MailUNDRIP in Canada: Comparing Harper and Trudeau’s Commitment to Indigenous Human Rights Student Name: Myrthe Walravens StudentFollowing is the case study of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who headed the Canadian Parliament from 2006 to 2015. Then, I conduct a case study of...Leiden University Student RepositoryCanada election: Five things Stephen Harper got wrong - BBC NewsOct 20, 2015 — Canada election: Five things Stephen Harper got wrong * Tom Geoghegan BBC News, Washington * After nearly 10 years as Canada's leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper BBC First Liberal budget good for Canadian science, but what about global health? He ( Prime Minister Stephen Harper ) barred government scientists from speaking to the press, cut off crucial environmental research funding, lacked transparency. The Lancet edited by Teresa HealyThe assault continued in Harper's first budget, even though climate change and the environment were barely mentioned. Despite having just registered an $8 billi...Policy AlternativesJust the Facts: Stephen Harper's Poor JudgementSep 27, 2013 — Just the Facts: Stephen Harper's Poor Judgement September 27, 2013 Former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro is n...Liberal Party of Canada The Environmental, Democratic, and Rule-of-Law Implications of Harper's Environmental Assessment LegacyJun 21, 2016 — All errors remain my own. Canada's leading environmental law scholars have identified Harper's legacy as a full-scale attack on the environment,' one that simul...Centre for Constitutional Studies
This is AI generated but this is what PM Harper did.
Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien and Prime Minister, Stephen Harper both caused damage to our Canadian military. You can actually go read about that, but when you look back over the last 50 years, it’s the CPC governments that have done most damage to our country and our economy. The latest version of the CPC party is actually a danger to our country’s sovereignty and democracy. I shake my head as a person who has never voted for the CPC federal party. I did make the mistake of voting for the CPC party in Ontario twice. Didn’t make that mistake a third time. I may not have a university degree or a college degree but what I do know is that it seems that the CPC federal and provincial are doing far more damage than the current liberal federal government today. I actually wasn’t shocked to read about the number of union people that are voting conservative. What they failed to understand is if they went and check the voting record for the CPC party of Canada they would see that they voted no on everything that the former liberal government has put forward and the liberal government that is in power now that actually would help people. Our country cannot run on a slogans, divisions, and distraction. We need a government that is supported by the “opposition” that actually care about what Canada truly needs. We need to be a separate independent economic power. We have the ability to do it.
The facts are that the Conservatives left Canada with a surplus and since 2015 under the Liberals we are more than1.4 trillion in debt who are you kidding
Isn't it about time to end the preaching & start the doing? Every year of delay is another year of losses, and the clock has started ticking a lot faster! The proposed Canada Strong Fund is a good start, but an accelerated program of re-nationalisation of OUR commons is needed. Keep the TM pipeline. Invest in critical minerals & infrastructure as an equity partner.
We are at an inflection point in our history, let's do it right!
You’re echoing the sentiment I hear from a lot of people: enough talking — show us the investment. Now.
I agree. The clock is ticking.
But what we are talking about is not just a funding announcement. It is cultural transformation inside government and across the industries expected to deliver the work.
As I hear it, Carney’s first cabinet meeting made the shift clear. Anyone expecting a friendly cabinet campfire got something much closer to an Agile standup: What have you done? What are you doing next? What is blocking you? What do you need? Good. Now go do it.
That matters because ministers left with mandates, budgets, and the expectation that they were there to execute, not admire the problem. That urgency is now working its way through the system. Where existing departments can move, they are being pushed to move. Where they cannot, new institutions are being created to get around the bureaucratic drag.
That is the part people do not always see from the outside. Before Canada can simply launch every project we need, the country’s capacity has to catch up to the ambition.
Skilled trades are a perfect example. Most of Canada’s skilled trades have been operating at or near capacity for much of the last two decades. In slower regions, many of the workers who want to travel are already on travel cards. So when Team Canada Strong talks about 100,000+ skilled trades workers, that is not just a recruitment slogan. It means building a carefully balanced workforce across regions, trades, contractors, owners, and projects.
Apprentices are not produced by announcement. They need years of paid, supervised, practical experience. You cannot add 100,000+ skilled workers to the system without creating the work, the supervision, the training capacity, and the project pipeline to support them.
That is why government, unions, contractors, and owners have to move together. Wage supports, training grants, facility upgrades, project financing, and better sequencing all have to line up. If they do not, we either fail to build, or we panic and import the skilled labour we should have been developing here.
So yes — keep strategic assets where they serve the public interest. Invest in critical minerals and infrastructure as an equity partner. Use public capital to build Canadian capacity, not just private balance sheets.
You are not wrong. We are at an inflection point, and the clock is ticking. But the wheels are already in motion. The heavy lifting now is making sure Canada can actually build what it is finally ready to begin.
You could've used the same argument for the Avro lesson. We keep waiting for big money to come save us and now we don't have the money to do anything differently. Our Canadian government does. And that is our money. Spending it wisely is key. And for those that didn't catch it. #NeverVoteConservative. They are a profit driven party. And if we don't change Now, with a leader willing to try, we will Never Have the Cards. #ElbowsUp Canada.
Soon after Carney 's election and a few speeches made, it became obvious the government would look to natural resources to finance a new Canada. One that could easily lead the Western Hemisphere. He made agreements without using hard cash, attempting to save some capital for the costs of infrastructure, education, and other needs inside Canada. Not borrowing, but making trades. Bring hard cash into the country, use it as needed and judiciously expending natural resources, without ruining the land and depleting those same resources needed for the future of the nation. He has mostly stayed on this track, sometimes offering cash to nations in desperate need of currency. But still making worthwhile agreements.
That any group doesn't understand We the People (in most nations) have ownership, and cannot grasp the concept of a government looking to a healthy stewardship is astounding to me.
Personally I am envious of what Canada is working towards right now, and setting up for what will be necessary 10-30 years out. (And wish I could live there.)
Too many have looked to the US and seen what domination rather than dominion reaps; they should now understand what happens when apathy and ignorance prevails.
That is a fair concern, but I would separate the ownership question from the conclusion.
These projects did not originate with Carney. They all predate him. Ksi Lisims and Pathways were already in motion years before he became Prime Minister. What Carney has inherited is a project pipeline shaped by decades of Canadian choices: privatization, foreign ownership, underinvestment in domestic industrial capacity, and a resource sector where the companies large enough to move quickly are often international, publicly traded, or foreign-controlled.
That is not ideal. It is the condition we allowed to develop over decades, we won’t reverse it in a year.
Ksi Lisims is not simply “Texas Western LNG.” It includes Western LNG, yes, but also the Nisga’a Nation and Rockies LNG, a partnership of Canadian natural gas producers. Pathways is also mixed: it includes ConocoPhillips and Imperial, but also major Canadian producers such as Canadian Natural, Cenovus, Suncor, and MEG.
So the right question is not whether foreign heldnor foreign interest companies are involved. At this stage, they almost inevitably will be. The right question is what Canada will now demand in exchange for public support.
If grant money, incentive loans, fast approvals, or public infrastructure are used, who benefits? Do Canadian workers get the jobs? Do Canadian apprentices get trained? Do Indigenous partners hold real power? Does Canada build processing capacity, export leverage, and long-term industrial strength? Does public money buy public value?
Until Canada rebuilds its own industrial powerhouses — and supplies them with enough Red Seal journeypersons and industrial capacity to do the work — our partnering options are limited. That is exactly why this cultural transformation matters.
Foreign participation is not automatically subservience. Canadian passivity is. The test under Carney is whether Canada uses these inherited projects to build Canadian leverage, or simply repeats the old habit of letting others capture the value from resources that should have strengthened us.
Thank you for this comprehensive course on Canadian stewardship, Wayne. You explained it very clearly. It ought to be a part of every Canadian high school history curriculum because so many younger generations, while being taught the concept of stewardship over the environment of our planet, have not been able to connect the dots to our Canadian sovereignty.
The highlighting of Norway's path is a great example of when stewardship has become national policy. In this comparison, we must acknowledge that Norway is a much smaller geographical entity with closer proximity, i.e., easier access, to multiple markets. Also, a smaller, more compact indigenous population to consider in Norway, where Sámi rights of ownership are fully recognized.
The Canadian pathway therefore will be different in practice, but the theory is the same. We need the united will of all our people.
PM Carney stated it clearly to tRump in the Oval when he smilingly said he's checked with the owners, and Canada's not for sale.
Thank you. I agree. This should be taught in school — not as partisan politics, but as basic civic literacy.
I am not sure we do a good enough job teaching young Canadians that stewardship is not only an environmental idea. It is also a democratic one. Our resources are part of the national inheritance. They do not belong to one government, one company, one party, or one generation.
I think that question sits near the base of the chasm dividing us: who owns the national trust?
If Canadians understand that the answer is Canadians, they will pay much closer attention to what governments do in their name. They will also be less easily persuaded that public assets should quietly become private windfalls, or that the highest purpose of our resources is to enrich whoever can extract them fastest.
Norway’s path is not Canada’s path. Our geography, federal structure, Indigenous rights, and regional realities are different. But the principle is the same: resources should be developed, when we choose to develop them, in a way that builds lasting public value.
That is the stewardship lesson. Canada is not for sale because Canadians are not merely customers in this country. We are the owners, the beneficiaries, and the trustees for those who come next.
Except he's signed an MOU with an actor who has no good will and immediately dilutes the rules to reduce the impact on companies (who spirit the profits away to CEOs executives and foreigners)
I understand that concern. Danielle Smith has not earned the benefit of the doubt, and any process that accelerates major projects deserves close scrutiny.
But I do not read the MOU as a blank cheque. I read it as a test.
The agreement does not simply say: build the pipeline and let the companies sort out the rest. It ties the project to a series of conditions: industrial carbon pricing, the Pathways emissions-reduction project, Indigenous consultation, British Columbia’s economic interests, west-coast export diversification, and federal review through the Major Projects Office.
That does not eliminate the risk. It defines the test of good faith.
If the project proceeds under those conditions, then Canada may gain something more durable than another raw-resource export route. We may gain jobs, Indigenous ownership or participation, port and corridor capacity, greater access to non-U.S. markets, and a clearer national conversation about why Alberta keeps selling oil at a discount to a customer that increasingly uses dependency as leverage.
If Smith cannot deliver — if there is no credible private proponent, no acceptable route, no serious Indigenous partnership, no British Columbia accommodation, and no enforceable emissions plan — then the illusion collapses. She will have been given the political runway to prove her case, and the case will have failed on its own terms.
That is why I think the question is not whether Carney has taken a risk. He has. The question is whether the risk is structured to create Canadian public value if it succeeds, and political clarity if it fails.
Thankyou for writing that. I had no idea Australia and Canada have so much in common. We are trying to get our government to properly tax the oil and gas companies that take our resources (for next to nothing) and then we can use that money for social improvements. It's so frustrating that the government seems too scared to go up against the multinationals.
Thank you. Wayne. I am not an economist but thanks to your explanation I understand the shift in thinking that Mr. Carney is bringing to the federal government. Again, I am so grateful that Mark Carney is our Prime Minister. The world economy has become a large poker game and we need his knowledge and experience to play our hand.
II do not get the Conservatives in Alberta and elsewhere. We have the Conservatives to thank for selling off Petrocan, and missed out on owning the gas and oil industry, for most part, and we missed the chance to develop like Mexico did as the owner of our own resources. By the way, the Alberta provincial government also consumed the "Rainy Day Fund" that was set up from the oil patch revenues. I immigrated first to Alberta and married an oil patch guy. Why do we not refine our oil here, but let others do it in the USA? Why do we let foreign companies eat our profits and play us for fools? How dumb are Canadians? By the way, are you Mark's brother?
As a fifth generation Canadian, you pretty much stated truth about how a lot of union people who used to be NDP voters have switched their allegiance to the CPC. Not understanding that every conservative government that we have had since Prime Minister Brian Mulroney have almost destroyed our country’s ability to stand on its own. The biggest mistake that was ever made was the signing of the first free trade agreement with the United States. These “free trade agreements have always been we give to the United States who takes from Canada“. Every federal CPC government that we have had have done more damage than good. Here is an example of what Prime Minister Stephen Harper did to Canada during his time as our Prime Minister.
“Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tenure (2006–2015) fundamentally reshaped Canada, with critics pointing to several major areas where his policies caused significant and long-lasting damage. Environmental Rollbacks & ScienceMuzzling Scientists: The Harper administration implemented strict communication protocols that prevented government scientists from freely speaking to the media or public about their research. Dismantling Protections: His government cut funding to environmental programs, weakened the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and withdrew Canada from the Kyoto Protocol. Critics argue this set back Canada's climate change policies by a decade. Democratic & Institutional NormsCensoring Information: Scrapping the mandatory long-form census in 2011 compromised decades of demographic, social, and economic data, leading to the resignation of the Chief Statistician of Canada in protest. Proroguing Parliament: Harper faced widespread criticism for controversially proroguing (suspending) Parliament on multiple occasions to avoid political accountability and potential votes of no confidence. Omnibus Bills: His government frequently used massive, thousand-page omnibus budget bills to push through contentious, non-financial legislation with minimal debate. Economic & Industry DecisionsEliminating the Wheat Board: The Harper government ended the 76-year-old single-desk marketing system of the Canadian Wheat Board, forcing Western Canadian farmers into an open market and stripping them of their collective selling power. Foreign Investment Deals: He was criticized for ratifying the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), which critics argued tied Canada to lopsided terms for a minimum of 31 years. Indigenous RelationsLegislative Overreach: The government's unilateral push for the First Nations Education Act and the passing of Bill C-45 (which altered environmental protections on Indigenous lands) sparked massive pushback, fueling the birth of the Idle No More movement. Critics argue these policies set the nation's relationship with Indigenous communities back significantly. While supporters often praise Harper's steady handling of the economy during the 2008 financial crisis, detractors maintain that his hyper-partisan governance, austerity, and centralization severely weakened Canada's democratic institutions and environmental safeguards.2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was ...Jul 30, 2020 — 2020 hindsight: Ending the Canadian Wheat Board was an economic tragedy July 30, 2020 | Terry Boehm Canadian Wheat BoardCanadian Wheat Board (CWB), Farm Income,www.nfu.ca Harper sneaks through Canada-China FIPA, locks Canada in for 31 ...Sep 12, 2014 — In the world of official government announcements, a two-paragraph media release sent out in the late afternoon on the Friday before Parliament resumes sitting ...The Council of CanadiansPrime Minister Stephen Harper highlights government's 2012 ...Dec 14, 2016 — News Release 31 December 2012 Ottawa, Ontario Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement highlighting some of the government's significa...Canada.caStephen Harper's legacy: Good, bad and a dose of uglyOct 20, 2015 — 'I can't even get my friends to like me' Stephen Joseph Harper, of course, never set out to be lovable. He always knew he would rile the nabobs of the establish...CBCStephen Harper - WikipediaStephen Harper * 1 Early life and education * 2 Political beginnings 2.1 Reform Party MP (1993–1997) 2.2 Out of parliament (1997–2001) * 3 Opposition leader (20...WikipediaThe administration of Stephen Harper, 2006–15 - BritannicaMay 16, 2026 — The administration of Stephen Harper, 2006–15 * Home * History & Society * Science & Tech * Biographies * Animals & Nature * Geography & Travel * Arts & Culture...BritannicaHarper's 10 Year War on First NationsJul 16, 2015 — Harper's 10 Year War on First Nations July 16, 2015 by Pamela Palmater Pamela Palmater is a Mi'kmaw from Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. She is a l...The Harper DecadeCONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT OF ...CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT OF ... * Placing party Logos on Government of Canada Cheques Public spending announcements which are government activities were branded ...Centrist Party CanadaBusiness Brief: How Harper helped Carney Feb 3, 2026 — Paying it forward Stephen Harper's decade in office reshaped Canada's trade architecture in ways that are proving vital to Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose eff...The Globe and MailUNDRIP in Canada: Comparing Harper and Trudeau’s Commitment to Indigenous Human Rights Student Name: Myrthe Walravens StudentFollowing is the case study of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who headed the Canadian Parliament from 2006 to 2015. Then, I conduct a case study of...Leiden University Student RepositoryCanada election: Five things Stephen Harper got wrong - BBC NewsOct 20, 2015 — Canada election: Five things Stephen Harper got wrong * Tom Geoghegan BBC News, Washington * After nearly 10 years as Canada's leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper BBC First Liberal budget good for Canadian science, but what about global health? He ( Prime Minister Stephen Harper ) barred government scientists from speaking to the press, cut off crucial environmental research funding, lacked transparency. The Lancet edited by Teresa HealyThe assault continued in Harper's first budget, even though climate change and the environment were barely mentioned. Despite having just registered an $8 billi...Policy AlternativesJust the Facts: Stephen Harper's Poor JudgementSep 27, 2013 — Just the Facts: Stephen Harper's Poor Judgement September 27, 2013 Former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro is n...Liberal Party of Canada The Environmental, Democratic, and Rule-of-Law Implications of Harper's Environmental Assessment LegacyJun 21, 2016 — All errors remain my own. Canada's leading environmental law scholars have identified Harper's legacy as a full-scale attack on the environment,' one that simul...Centre for Constitutional Studies
This is AI generated but this is what PM Harper did.
Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien and Prime Minister, Stephen Harper both caused damage to our Canadian military. You can actually go read about that, but when you look back over the last 50 years, it’s the CPC governments that have done most damage to our country and our economy. The latest version of the CPC party is actually a danger to our country’s sovereignty and democracy. I shake my head as a person who has never voted for the CPC federal party. I did make the mistake of voting for the CPC party in Ontario twice. Didn’t make that mistake a third time. I may not have a university degree or a college degree but what I do know is that it seems that the CPC federal and provincial are doing far more damage than the current liberal federal government today. I actually wasn’t shocked to read about the number of union people that are voting conservative. What they failed to understand is if they went and check the voting record for the CPC party of Canada they would see that they voted no on everything that the former liberal government has put forward and the liberal government that is in power now that actually would help people. Our country cannot run on a slogans, divisions, and distraction. We need a government that is supported by the “opposition” that actually care about what Canada truly needs. We need to be a separate independent economic power. We have the ability to do it.
Your last paragraph says it all in a nice neat package. Thank you!
The facts are that the Conservatives left Canada with a surplus and since 2015 under the Liberals we are more than1.4 trillion in debt who are you kidding
This is brilliant. I hope it spreads far and is read by many.
You're preaching to the choir, Brother Wayne.
So...
Isn't it about time to end the preaching & start the doing? Every year of delay is another year of losses, and the clock has started ticking a lot faster! The proposed Canada Strong Fund is a good start, but an accelerated program of re-nationalisation of OUR commons is needed. Keep the TM pipeline. Invest in critical minerals & infrastructure as an equity partner.
We are at an inflection point in our history, let's do it right!
You’re echoing the sentiment I hear from a lot of people: enough talking — show us the investment. Now.
I agree. The clock is ticking.
But what we are talking about is not just a funding announcement. It is cultural transformation inside government and across the industries expected to deliver the work.
As I hear it, Carney’s first cabinet meeting made the shift clear. Anyone expecting a friendly cabinet campfire got something much closer to an Agile standup: What have you done? What are you doing next? What is blocking you? What do you need? Good. Now go do it.
That matters because ministers left with mandates, budgets, and the expectation that they were there to execute, not admire the problem. That urgency is now working its way through the system. Where existing departments can move, they are being pushed to move. Where they cannot, new institutions are being created to get around the bureaucratic drag.
That is the part people do not always see from the outside. Before Canada can simply launch every project we need, the country’s capacity has to catch up to the ambition.
Skilled trades are a perfect example. Most of Canada’s skilled trades have been operating at or near capacity for much of the last two decades. In slower regions, many of the workers who want to travel are already on travel cards. So when Team Canada Strong talks about 100,000+ skilled trades workers, that is not just a recruitment slogan. It means building a carefully balanced workforce across regions, trades, contractors, owners, and projects.
Apprentices are not produced by announcement. They need years of paid, supervised, practical experience. You cannot add 100,000+ skilled workers to the system without creating the work, the supervision, the training capacity, and the project pipeline to support them.
That is why government, unions, contractors, and owners have to move together. Wage supports, training grants, facility upgrades, project financing, and better sequencing all have to line up. If they do not, we either fail to build, or we panic and import the skilled labour we should have been developing here.
So yes — keep strategic assets where they serve the public interest. Invest in critical minerals and infrastructure as an equity partner. Use public capital to build Canadian capacity, not just private balance sheets.
You are not wrong. We are at an inflection point, and the clock is ticking. But the wheels are already in motion. The heavy lifting now is making sure Canada can actually build what it is finally ready to begin.
I can’t like this enough. It absolutely sums up what I’ve uneloqantly been trying to say for years. ❤️❤️❤️
You could've used the same argument for the Avro lesson. We keep waiting for big money to come save us and now we don't have the money to do anything differently. Our Canadian government does. And that is our money. Spending it wisely is key. And for those that didn't catch it. #NeverVoteConservative. They are a profit driven party. And if we don't change Now, with a leader willing to try, we will Never Have the Cards. #ElbowsUp Canada.
Venezuelans themselves are apathetic about who is the next to take control of their resources. People wonder why?
They have never benifited from any of it anyway. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
Carney is something else.
Excellent explanation of what Canada can and should achieve. Maple MAGA would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.
Soon after Carney 's election and a few speeches made, it became obvious the government would look to natural resources to finance a new Canada. One that could easily lead the Western Hemisphere. He made agreements without using hard cash, attempting to save some capital for the costs of infrastructure, education, and other needs inside Canada. Not borrowing, but making trades. Bring hard cash into the country, use it as needed and judiciously expending natural resources, without ruining the land and depleting those same resources needed for the future of the nation. He has mostly stayed on this track, sometimes offering cash to nations in desperate need of currency. But still making worthwhile agreements.
That any group doesn't understand We the People (in most nations) have ownership, and cannot grasp the concept of a government looking to a healthy stewardship is astounding to me.
Personally I am envious of what Canada is working towards right now, and setting up for what will be necessary 10-30 years out. (And wish I could live there.)
Too many have looked to the US and seen what domination rather than dominion reaps; they should now understand what happens when apathy and ignorance prevails.
Absolutely fascinating.
But if indeed this is Carney's intent, then why are the big projects, especially in oil and gas, all partly or in whole led or owned by US companies?
Ksi Lisims - Texas "Western LNG"
Pathways Alliance - ConocoPhillips and Imperial Oil.
This just seems like more subservience to the USA...
That is a fair concern, but I would separate the ownership question from the conclusion.
These projects did not originate with Carney. They all predate him. Ksi Lisims and Pathways were already in motion years before he became Prime Minister. What Carney has inherited is a project pipeline shaped by decades of Canadian choices: privatization, foreign ownership, underinvestment in domestic industrial capacity, and a resource sector where the companies large enough to move quickly are often international, publicly traded, or foreign-controlled.
That is not ideal. It is the condition we allowed to develop over decades, we won’t reverse it in a year.
Ksi Lisims is not simply “Texas Western LNG.” It includes Western LNG, yes, but also the Nisga’a Nation and Rockies LNG, a partnership of Canadian natural gas producers. Pathways is also mixed: it includes ConocoPhillips and Imperial, but also major Canadian producers such as Canadian Natural, Cenovus, Suncor, and MEG.
So the right question is not whether foreign heldnor foreign interest companies are involved. At this stage, they almost inevitably will be. The right question is what Canada will now demand in exchange for public support.
If grant money, incentive loans, fast approvals, or public infrastructure are used, who benefits? Do Canadian workers get the jobs? Do Canadian apprentices get trained? Do Indigenous partners hold real power? Does Canada build processing capacity, export leverage, and long-term industrial strength? Does public money buy public value?
Until Canada rebuilds its own industrial powerhouses — and supplies them with enough Red Seal journeypersons and industrial capacity to do the work — our partnering options are limited. That is exactly why this cultural transformation matters.
Foreign participation is not automatically subservience. Canadian passivity is. The test under Carney is whether Canada uses these inherited projects to build Canadian leverage, or simply repeats the old habit of letting others capture the value from resources that should have strengthened us.
Thank you for this comprehensive course on Canadian stewardship, Wayne. You explained it very clearly. It ought to be a part of every Canadian high school history curriculum because so many younger generations, while being taught the concept of stewardship over the environment of our planet, have not been able to connect the dots to our Canadian sovereignty.
The highlighting of Norway's path is a great example of when stewardship has become national policy. In this comparison, we must acknowledge that Norway is a much smaller geographical entity with closer proximity, i.e., easier access, to multiple markets. Also, a smaller, more compact indigenous population to consider in Norway, where Sámi rights of ownership are fully recognized.
The Canadian pathway therefore will be different in practice, but the theory is the same. We need the united will of all our people.
PM Carney stated it clearly to tRump in the Oval when he smilingly said he's checked with the owners, and Canada's not for sale.
Where there's wiil, there's a way. ❤️🇨🇦
Thank you. I agree. This should be taught in school — not as partisan politics, but as basic civic literacy.
I am not sure we do a good enough job teaching young Canadians that stewardship is not only an environmental idea. It is also a democratic one. Our resources are part of the national inheritance. They do not belong to one government, one company, one party, or one generation.
I think that question sits near the base of the chasm dividing us: who owns the national trust?
If Canadians understand that the answer is Canadians, they will pay much closer attention to what governments do in their name. They will also be less easily persuaded that public assets should quietly become private windfalls, or that the highest purpose of our resources is to enrich whoever can extract them fastest.
Norway’s path is not Canada’s path. Our geography, federal structure, Indigenous rights, and regional realities are different. But the principle is the same: resources should be developed, when we choose to develop them, in a way that builds lasting public value.
That is the stewardship lesson. Canada is not for sale because Canadians are not merely customers in this country. We are the owners, the beneficiaries, and the trustees for those who come next.
Wow! A must read for all Canadians. Thank you.
Except he's signed an MOU with an actor who has no good will and immediately dilutes the rules to reduce the impact on companies (who spirit the profits away to CEOs executives and foreigners)
I understand that concern. Danielle Smith has not earned the benefit of the doubt, and any process that accelerates major projects deserves close scrutiny.
But I do not read the MOU as a blank cheque. I read it as a test.
The agreement does not simply say: build the pipeline and let the companies sort out the rest. It ties the project to a series of conditions: industrial carbon pricing, the Pathways emissions-reduction project, Indigenous consultation, British Columbia’s economic interests, west-coast export diversification, and federal review through the Major Projects Office.
That does not eliminate the risk. It defines the test of good faith.
If the project proceeds under those conditions, then Canada may gain something more durable than another raw-resource export route. We may gain jobs, Indigenous ownership or participation, port and corridor capacity, greater access to non-U.S. markets, and a clearer national conversation about why Alberta keeps selling oil at a discount to a customer that increasingly uses dependency as leverage.
If Smith cannot deliver — if there is no credible private proponent, no acceptable route, no serious Indigenous partnership, no British Columbia accommodation, and no enforceable emissions plan — then the illusion collapses. She will have been given the political runway to prove her case, and the case will have failed on its own terms.
That is why I think the question is not whether Carney has taken a risk. He has. The question is whether the risk is structured to create Canadian public value if it succeeds, and political clarity if it fails.
Thankyou for writing that. I had no idea Australia and Canada have so much in common. We are trying to get our government to properly tax the oil and gas companies that take our resources (for next to nothing) and then we can use that money for social improvements. It's so frustrating that the government seems too scared to go up against the multinationals.
A good explanation. If only more people would listen.