Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Ostriches on the runway

Published

12 minute read

PAUL WELLS

Dominic LeBlanc says it’s time to rise above partisanship. Watch the skies

“The protection of our democracy demands that we rise above partisanship,” Dominic LeBlanc told reporters Saturday morning in the lobby of the West Block’s backup House of Commons. “Canada isn’t the only country facing the threat of foreign interference. Many of our allies are, even now, having discussions on ways to protect their democracies against this scourge. If they can have reasoned and constructive discussions on this subject, Canada should be able to do the same. That’s why the prime minister tasked me [on Friday] with consulting, over the coming days, experts, legal scholars and opposition parties on what the next steps should look like — and determine who best may be suited to lead this public work.”

You can tell the Trudeau government is really badly rattled when it starts doing what it should have done in the first place. “Consulting experts, legal scholars and opposition parties” was an option in March, when Trudeau decided instead to lay the foundation for Friday’s debacle. Talking to people — in the old-fashioned sense of (a) showing the slightest interest in what they have to say and (b) allowing it to inflect your actions in any perceptible way — is always an option. Nor is it in any danger of getting worn out through overuse, where this government is concerned.

Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

“It’s our government’s hope that the opposition parties will treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves,” said LeBlanc, whose boss ignored a string of reports from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and whose early-warning system for news of Beijing’s intimidation against a sitting MP was named Fife and Chase.

LeBlanc opened the floor to questions. The first: Shouldn’t there be a public inquiry? “A public inquiry has never been off the table,” he said. “All options remain on the table.” This was change masquerading as continuity. Johnston took a public inquiry off the table three weeks ago. Trudeau accepted the un-tabling. By putting it back on the table, LeBlanc was bowing to what may be the inevitable conclusion of the last few days: that the opposition parties, by adapting a common line in favour of a full inquiry, may have made one inevitable.

Another characteristic of this government is that it views its tribulations as tests of other people. The short odyssey of David Johnston, in other words, is a learning opportunity for us all. “My job,” LeBlanc said, “is to, in the very next few days, in short order, ask opposition leaders to take this matter seriously. Not just to simply say, ‘Oh, there has to be a public inquiry.’ OK: Make suggestions about who could lead this public inquiry. What would the terms of reference be? What do they see as the timelines? How do they deal with the obvious challenge of respecting Canadian law that protects some of the most sensitive intelligence information?”

I should say I take LeBlanc at his word when he claims to be seeking input in good faith. As a general rule, his arrival tends to mark an improvement in this government’s handling of a difficult file. But just to be on the safe side, it’s worth saying some obvious things clearly.

The opposition parties should give input when asked. It’s useful for each of them to go through the exercise of conceiving in detail the proper handling of the election-interference file. And it’s good of the government to ask, albeit way later than it should have.

But everything LeBlanc plans to ask them — whether to have an inquiry, who should lead it, its mandate and deadlines and legal justification — remains the responsibility of the government. If the opposition parties chicken out, or play dumb games, or deadlock, or suggest people who decline to participate, the responsibility for designing a workable policy remains the government’s. I’m pretty sure Trudeau volunteered for the job of prime minister. In fact I’m sure there was something in the papers about it. He is in this fix now because he wanted Johnston to make his decisions for him. As I wrote nearly three months ago.

Thank you for reading Paul Wells. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

LeBlanc kept saying an inquiry should be run by someone “eminent.” I mean…sure? Whatever? I suppose eminence shouldn’t be actively disqualifying, at least. But to me the craving for eminence is a strange instinct. Eminence is distinctly relative: I suspect more than half of Canadians could never, at any point, have told you who David Johnston is, or Julie Payette, or Craig Kielburger. I’ve come to suspect that “eminent” translates as “impressive to Katie Telford,” which is fine but, again, an odd criterion. Instead may I propose “competent”?

When I wrote about Johnston’s appointment in March, I a suggested a few alternative candidates for the job of deciding how to respond to the mandate for which I already thought Johnston was ill-suited. My list was concocted at random on a few minutes’ notice, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, purely for illustrative purposes. I could come up with a dozen other names, and I don’t even know what I’m talking about. If I were burdened in LeBlanc’s place with such a task, I’d begin by asking for a list of associate deputy ministers at the departments of Global Affairs and Justice, as well as a list of currently serving and recently retired ambassadors. Probably the guy who used to be the national director of the Liberal Party of Canada would be a bad idea, I guess I need to add.

I also might do some reading. I’d recall that when the lawyer Kenneth Feinberg was brought in to decide compensation for families of the 9/11 victims in the U.S., he couldn’t have been further from a household name. When James B. Donovan got Francis Gary Powers released by the Soviets, or Jean Monnet invented the European Union, or Elissa Golberg became Canada’s first civilian representative in Kandahar, they weren’t household names. They still aren’t. They were just good at their work. You know that uncomfortable suspicion that Canada is just six pals from the McGill alumni club who gather every Friday to carve up the spoils of elite consensus over pitchers of iced tea on the verandah of the Royal Ottawa Golf Club? The first step toward perpetuating that suspicion is the urge to find “eminent” people for technical work.

The title of today’s post is cryptic. When LeBlanc said our democracy depends on rising above partisanship, I thought, Uh-oh, and I started thinking about objects or creatures that don’t normally rise above much. Which led to a mental image of ostriches trying to fly. I actually have seen non-partisanship, many times, including from some of the most partisan operators in Canadian politics. But I still wouldn’t bet on it happening in any particular case. The incentives run all the other way. To insulate against it, politicians might want to read the latest from Alliance Canada Hong Kong, the diaspora group that has been chronicling foreign interference for years, for whom the issue is not a fun partisan football and the prospect of testifying yet again, to educate some eminent commissioner, is not appealing.

I keep saying the under-served constituency in this country is the people who would like to see serious problems treated seriously. Not in the sense of cheap theatrics — furrowed brows, jabby index fingers, “my time is limited” — but in the sense of, you know, seriousness. It feels cheap to lodge such a complaint. It’s too easy, too timeless. OK, smartass, what are you proposing? I dunno, more, uh…. seriousness, I guess. But I think everyone senses it.

Last September, the CBC’s Aaron Wherry reported, Justin Trudeau told his caucus “to focus on four Cs: competence, confidence, contrast and campaign-readiness (in that order).” I’m left wondering how the prime minister defines competence and how he thinks he’s doing. This is a guy who, when he made those remarks, was less than a year past deciding that the biggest problem with his cabinet was that Marc Garneau was in it.

Meanwhile, I checked with Pierre Poilievre’s Twitter account to see whether he had responded to LeBlanc’s overture. Here’s how the Conservative leader spent his Friday afternoon:

I sometimes wonder whether these people know we can see them. It’s time to rise above partisanship. Flap, you big gorgeous birds! Flap!

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription to Paul Wells.

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

National

Did the Liberals Backdoor Ruby Dhalla to Hand Mark Carney the Crown?

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

She was surging in the polls—so why was she secretly disqualified? Was this a race or a coronation?

She Wasn’t Supposed to Win

Ruby Dhalla wasn’t supposed to be a problem. When she entered the Liberal leadership race, she was treated as an afterthought, an outsider with no chance of breaking through. Mark Carney was the clear favorite—not because he had some overwhelming grassroots movement behind him, but because the Liberal swamp had already crowned him as Trudeau’s successor. The decision had been made long before the race even began. But then, something happened that the elites didn’t see coming: Dhalla started gaining traction. She started signing up thousands of new members. She started climbing in the polls. And that’s when the Liberal machine kicked into overdrive to shut her down.

If you’ve been paying attention to Canadian politics, none of this should be surprising. This is how the Liberal Party operates. The leadership race was never about choosing the best candidate; it was about making sure their pre-selected golden boy, Mark Carney, strolled into power without opposition. Dhalla’s rise threatened that plan, and as we’ve seen time and time again, the Liberal establishment has no patience for democracy when it gets in the way of their backroom deals.

Who Is Ruby Dhalla?

Unlike Carney, who spent his career bouncing between bureaucratic positions and the boardrooms of global financial institutions, Ruby Dhalla actually had experience winning elections. She wasn’t a puppet installed by the elites—she had built her own career in politics. Born in Winnipeg to Punjabi immigrant parents, Dhalla had been politically active from a young age. At just 14, she made international headlines for standing up to India’s Prime Minister over Sikh violence, proving early on that she wasn’t afraid to challenge powerful figures.

In 2004, she was elected as Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, becoming one of the first Sikh women in Canada’s Parliament. For seven years, she fought for causes that mattered to working-class Canadians—pushing for foreign credential recognition, better healthcare access, and policies that helped immigrants integrate and succeed instead of being stuck in low-wage jobs.

But the Liberal Party, especially under Trudeau, doesn’t like independent thinkers. Dhalla lost her seat in 2011, took a step back from politics, and then, in 2025, decided to make a comeback. This time, she wasn’t just running on her record—she was running to take back the Liberal Party from the corporate elites, career bureaucrats, and political insiders who had hijacked it. And for a brief moment, it looked like she might actually succeed.

Dhalla’s Platform Was A Direct Threat to the Liberal Swamp

Let’s get one thing straight: Dhalla wasn’t just another Liberal politician running on empty platitudes. She was actually taking on the biggest failures of the Trudeau era—the very policies that have driven the country into the ground.

She was the only candidate willing to take a hard stance on illegal immigration, promising to deport those who entered Canada illegally and crack down on human trafficking networks that had turned Canadian cities into a magnet for asylum scams. This was a direct rebuke of Trudeau’s open-border policies, which flooded major urban centers with asylum seekers while leaving legal immigrants—the ones who actually followed the rules—waiting years in bureaucratic limbo.

She also had the guts to address Canada’s crime wave—something the Liberal establishment refuses to even acknowledge. Under Trudeau, violent crime, carjackings, and organized theft rings have exploded across the country, while the justice system has been hijacked by radical left-wing activists who care more about “rehabilitating” criminals than protecting innocent people. Dhalla called for stronger sentencing laws, increased funding for law enforcement, and an end to the revolving-door justice system that lets repeat offenders walk free. This was a direct challenge to the Liberal Party’s activist wing, which has spent years prioritizing criminals over victims.

Economically, she focused on the cost-of-living crisis that Trudeau’s reckless spending had fueled. While Mark Carney was busy rubbing elbows with globalist elites, Dhalla was actually talking to working-class Canadians who were struggling to afford basic necessities, being crushed by inflation, and priced out of homeownership. She proposed tax relief for small businesses, homeownership incentives, and policies to lower the cost of essential goods. Most importantly, she vowed to end corporate influence over government policy—something that would have put her in direct conflict with the very donors bankrolling Carney’s campaign.

The Fix Was In—And the Liberal Establishment Didn’t Even Try to Hide It

While Dhalla was out winning over actual voters, Carney didn’t have to lift a finger—at least, that’s how she sees it. According to Dhalla, the Bay Street donors, the Liberal bureaucrats, and Trudeau’s inner circle had already decided he would be their next puppet. But her unexpected momentum was throwing a wrench into their plans.

She claims her campaign signed up over 100,000 new members—a surge that, in her view, proved just how many Canadians wanted an alternative to the establishment. Internal polling allegedly showed that she was running neck and neck with Carney, challenging the idea that he was the inevitable frontrunner. Most importantly, she says she was calling out corruption within the party—something the Liberal insiders simply couldn’t tolerate.

That, she argues, is when the knives came out.

According to Dhalla, her campaign faced deliberate obstruction at every turn. She says she was denied access to crucial party membership lists, while Carney’s team faced no such restrictions. She also claims the party handed exclusive control of voter data to Data Sciences, a company with deep ties to both Trudeau and Carney—giving the establishment free rein over the internal mechanics of the race.

Then came what Dhalla describes as a financial ambush. Leadership candidates were required to submit a $350,000 deposit to stay in the race. Her campaign, backed by thousands of small-dollar donors, met that requirement in full. But just days later, she says, the party suddenly hit her with a six-page letter listing 27 allegations—none of which had been raised before she made her final payment. Despite fully cooperating, answering every question, and providing every requested document, Dhalla was disqualified behind closed doors.

But were these serious concerns about party rules and ethics? Or were they just serious concerns for Mark Carney’s leadership bid?

They didn’t even bother waiting for a debate. They removed her just before the first leadership debate in Montreal, ensuring that Carney wouldn’t have to answer a single tough question. The only real challenger was gone. And just like that, the “race” was over.

A Staged Leadership Race

With Dhalla and Chandra Arya—the only two South Asian candidates—mysteriously vanished from the race, the Liberal Party has officially dropped the mask. This is not a party of “inclusion” or “diversity” or whatever meaningless buzzword they trot out when the cameras are rolling. This is a party of insiders, where Trudeau’s handpicked elites play musical chairs with Canada’s future while pretending to hold a fair contest. And now, with the competition conveniently wiped off the board, Mark Carney—the globalist banker with a resume straight out of the Davos job fair—is all but guaranteed his coronation.

And let’s take a moment to acknowledge who’s left. Chrystia Freeland—who doesn’t even bother hiding her ties to Carney (he’s literally her children’s godfather)—isn’t running against him, she’s running as his insurance policy. If, for some reason, Carney stumbles, Freeland will be right there to catch the baton and carry on the exact same elite-driven, Canada-last agenda. And then there’s Karina Gould, a candidate so irrelevant to this race that her sole purpose seems to be testing the waters for the Liberals’ shiny new Marxist project: Universal Basic Income. Because if there’s one thing Trudeau’s Liberals love more than taxing Canadians into the ground, it’s making them dependent on government handouts.

This was never a leadership race. It was a staged coronation, a laughable farce cooked up by the same Liberal swamp who have spent the last decade running Canada into the ground. If this had happened in another country, Canadian politicians would be tripping over themselves to condemn it, talking about how democracy is under attack. But because it happened inside the Liberal Party, the media just shrugs and moves on, pretending this is all perfectly normal. Because, in their world, it is.

And that’s the real story here. If this is how the Liberals run their own leadership race, what do you think they’ll do in the next federal election? If they’re willing to purge their own candidates, rig their own nomination process, and outright silence anyone who dares to challenge their elite-controlled puppet show, then what chance does the average Canadian voter have?

This isn’t just corrupt. It’s disgusting. It’s a slap in the face to every Canadian who still believes in fair elections, free debate, and the basic idea that leaders should be chosen by the people—not installed behind closed doors by Trudeau’s golfing buddies and Bay Street billionaires.

The Liberal Party isn’t a political party anymore. It’s a gated country club for the ruling class, where power is passed around like a family heirloom. And if no one stands up to stop it, they’ll keep getting away with it. The fix is in, the swamp is deeper than ever, and the only question left is: Are Canadians going to do anything about it?

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Economy

Meeting Ottawa’s new housing target will require more than $300 billion in additional financing every year until 2030

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda

To meet Ottawa’s ambitious new housing construction targets in order to restore affordability, the country needs more than $300 billion in additional financing every year from 2025 to 2030, finds a new report published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“To increase home building and restore business investment in key areas like technology to previous levels, Canada needs to become much more attractive to investors, both from within Canada and around the world,” said Steven Globerman, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Canada Needs to Save Much More to Finance an Ambitious Investment Agenda.

To restore housing affordability, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a Crown Corporation of the federal government, has estimated that about 3.5 million additional housing units need to be built by 2030 given expected construction rates.

The study finds that for the federal government to meet this housing construction goal, an estimated $331 to $364 billion in additional financing is needed annually from 2025-2030.

If business investment in key areas such as communications and IT are to return to previous levels, another roughly $13 billion is needed annually.

In total, this means Canada needs an additional $343 to $377 billion in financing annually over the next five years. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to increasing the current Canadian savings rate by 50 per cent.

One option to mitigate the need for a drastic increase in the domestic savings rate is to attract more foreign investment, but that will require substantial policy reforms to make Canada a more attractive environment for foreign investors.

“It is very likely that the ambitious targets that have been set for homebuilding and business investment won’t be met, but even so, encouraging increased investment and higher domestic savings is a worthy policy pursuit,” Globerman said.

  • Both the Canadian government and policymakers from various organizations including the Bank of Canada have called for ambitious programs to increase capital investment in Canada, particularly investment focused on residential housing and productivity-enhancing business assets.
  • The ambitious domestic investment agenda will require a substantial increase in domestic savings in order to finance the necessary increased capital expenditure. The requisite increase has been largely ignored, to date, in policy proposals and surrounding discussion of those proposals.
  • The financial capital required to fund major investments in residential housing and even modest increases in business investment will require an increase in the domestic savings rate of as much as 50 percent. Alternatively, much larger inflows of long-term foreign capital investments into Canada beyond what has been realized over the past few decades will be required.
  • Such large increases in the domestic savings rate and in foreign capital inflows would require unrealistic and unsustainably high real interest rates. The implication is that the federal government’s investment goals, especially with regard to increasing the supply of residential housing, are unrealizable over the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, implementing policies to encourage increased domestic savings and channeling those savings into high priority investment activities should be a public policy imperative.

Read The Full Report

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X