This was an FOI request from advocay group Safe Parkside - exactly the kind of information Ford wants to hide.

"The real problem is that our political system rewards economic rhetoric and punishes economic honesty."

Could Canada join the European Union? Changes required to join EU would be huge and possibly insurmountable, including withdrawing from USMCA

The more pertinent question that would merit some attention outside academic debates in the current situation:

Is there anything Canada can learn from the EU? Thinking about the design of industrial strategy and intergovernmental coordination, for example.

www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/art...

This is the closest I think I’ve seen and heard Carney come to Harper’s delivery and ideas, down to the idea that “our” ancestors faced an “inhospitable land” when they arrived.

Absolutely. The question of how Canada should position itself vis-a-vis the US has been part of our DNA, even predating 1867. The problem is that the Carney government pretends it's not, although it should be part of a broader national dialogue - especially during this critical juncture.

Carney vs Carney: Desperately seeking certainty Canada is trapped in an unacknowledged debate over the nature of the US crisis, with PM Carney’s words on one side and his actions on the other.

However, *all* of his actions are *fully* consistent with a marginal hedging strategy that presumes the US will eventually return to its (economic) senses. It's a recipe for deeper integration.
As I put it here, he's selling status quo friendly policy as revolutionary change.

So much of Mark Carney's strategy simply doesn't add up given his consistently stated goals and assessments. Seeking deeper energy integration with the United States. The DST cave. His cuts to regulatory capacity in the face of lost US capacity. Continued dependence on US platforms.

"Some", by the way, include Minister Tim Hodgson:

Canada is “very hopeful that we can get through this difficult time and we can resume the type of relationship that we’ve had with the Americans for a long, long time."

www.theglobeandmail.com/business/art...

"The Turbo proved that a high-speed train could run on Canadian tracks. It was the tracks that let it down. Investment and expansion of our existing rail corridors may not be as bold and exciting as a shiny new high-speed rail line, but it would get the job done at a fraction of the cost."

Opinion: Canada’s high-speed train from 50 years ago has lessons for today Rather than a brand new line, improvements to the current tracks could achieve the same goal

The Turbo was also part and parcel of Canada's last experiment with large-scale industrial policy.

A government seriously committed to nation-building would promote a historically informed public dialogue about the policy options we have today.

But: Nada.

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/arti...

Great analysis that contextualizes Ottawa's laissez-faire approach to industrial policy.

As long as it further strengthens self-rule instead of shared-rule, institutional change is always an option in Canadian federalism.

Metrolinx ‘blocked’ key tasks, then fired partners for missing deadlines: report Internal emails and minutes hint at what a source called 'pure chaos' behind the scenes

Sources working on the project say Metrolinx simply stopped talking to them.

Leaked C-suite minutes, premier's office emails, and sources with first-hand knowledge flesh out a picture of what one former employee called "pure chaos."

#onpoli

www.thetrillium.ca/news/municip...

Stubb knows a lot about hockey, the EU and has a background in political science, but I doubt he – like most Europeans - understands Canadian federalism. If this was really meant to be an intentional, strategic pitch - it would be an interesting question though.

It is also entirely incompatible with our federal system:

Imagine federal cabinet ministers co-decide in the Council (with the Commission and the EP) over policies that fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Never going to happen.

In every class I teach, I show my students a simple Venn diagram representing policies that are good economics and/or good politics. There's a sweet spot that represents both, which I describe as good policy. This is not in that sweet spot.

Carney hasn‘t had to answer for these choices largely because of the belief that because he was trained in economics, he’s acting objectively. But he’s clearly acting politically. And there‘s no one way to “do“ economics. It’s not an objective science that yields one single answer to a problem.

Oil and gas CEOs say they see Carney majority as a vote for Canadian energy Leaders weigh in on how the shift in Ottawa will affect the tone around energy policy and what has changed since the war in Iran started

Define "Canadian energy" in Tim Hodgson's "Fortress North America" strategy.

www.theglobeandmail.com/business/art...

Yes, and I am not blaming anyone for having a rather superficial understanding of the EU. At the same time, the poll asks unambiguously about "full membership". Either way, it's not going to happen anyway.

...vast majority *has* no idea....

Potemkin village - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemki...

I teach EU politics and say with confidence: the vast majority of Canadians have no idea what exactly the EU is, how it works and what the process and outcome of Canadian membership would entail.

This is a Potemkin village.

1) Every country in the EU gets a veto over critical policy
2) Hostile actors like Russia can capture EU member governments, e.g. Hungary, to do their bidding
3) There is no mechanism to kick a country out of the EU

Happy for Canada to work with the EU, harmonize regulations, etc, but joining? No.

And such a profound difference between Canada and Europe. There's not a lot the EU member states (and regions and municipalities) reject more categorically than ISDS.

....Ontario tends to follow the outliers, like Hungary and Belarus.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

Higher-level government unilaterally diminishes the possibility of “priority misalignment” with lower-level by

1) reducing municipalities' policy scope
2) their organizational autonomy and
3) interfering directly (appointments).

While local autonomy has generally increased around the world,...

Pierre E. Trudeau articulated a relatively coherent concept of nation-building - also as an alternative to Clark's "community of communities".

The Carney government has never even attempted to define what it means by that. So what exactly is it about the "mission" that attracts the floor-crossers?

I am aware, and maybe I am reading too much into it, but still:
Champagne chairs Government Transformation, McGuinty chairs Secure and Sovereign Canada. And Hodgson chairs Build Canada. Not looking good, from a policy and gender perspective.

Also:
Not a single Cabinet Committee is chaired by a female minister (3 female ministers serve as Vice-Chairs, Anand 2 times)

Maybe also indicative of policy priorities:

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources T. Hodgson chairs the Cabinet Committee “Build Canada”.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Industry M. Joly is only Vice-Chair.