Thoughts on Poilievre's speech and important points some might miss...
Plus, what did the audience think of it, meaning you.
Pierre Poilievre’s speech on Thursday was positive, energetic, hopeful - in short it met the moment. The question some are now asking is whether this speech and this tone came a year too late to respond to Donald Trump.
We all know the claim of Poilievre’s critics in the last election, he needed to pivot to Donald Trump and speak more about the American president. The response from the Conservatives was that talking about Trump in the last election only helped Mark Carney and the Liberals.
I think there was truth in the Conservative view that talking about Trump, making him the feature of last year’s campaign played to perceived Liberal strengths. Polling showed that when it came to Trump, voters believed the Liberals were best suited to deal with him.
I’d say the jury is still out on whether that is true, and in fact I’d say the Liberals are failing.
A year ago, as now, the Conservatives perform best when talking about the cost of living, housing, crime and immigration. They thrive on those issues, the Liberals own Trump.
Could a different tone have helped…
It’s interesting that last year I would hear otherwise politically plugged in people make claims such as Poilievre just complains, he doesn’t offer solutions. Of course, he did offer solutions and Mark Carney stole many of them including cutting middle class taxes, scrapping the carbon tax and more.
But this notion that Poilievre offered no solutions has persisted, and one of my regular readers and frequent email correspondents who fully supports the Liberals alluded to that today in response to Poilievre’s speech and my column on the issue.
“Finally Poilievre speaks common sense, not just being a pitbull but offering alternatives,” wrote Lionel Sauve.
As I mentioned, Poilievre was offering alternatives, but Lionel and many others weren’t hearing them.
There is no doubt that Poilievre’s tone was different on Thursday. Might that have helped in last year’s election?
We shall never know, we can only speculate.
Get the podcast mic that I use and trust…
A speech for a stronger country…
What I liked about Poilievre’s speech was that it called for a stronger Canada and a more resilient economy on Canada’s terms. He wasn’t defining us by what we aren’t as too many do when they simply define Canada as not American - see Justin Trudeau last year.
Poilievre was defining us by our past and what we have the potential to become.
Take this long section from the opening.
Friends,
Nearly two thousand years ago, Marcus Aurelius expressed a timeless truth:
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
That idea is just as true for countries as it is for individuals.
Canada cannot control the decisions of foreign presidents.
We cannot control global shocks or the volatility of the world.
But we can control the strength of our own country.
We can control whether our economy is solid or fragile.
We can control whether we are dependent or self-reliant.
We can control whether we drift - or whether we build.
And the lesson of this moment is simple:
The path to sovereignty begins with focusing relentlessly on what is within our power. Canada itself was born precisely from this insight.
Ours is not a country created by accident. Confederation was a conscious act of national self-determination--a decision by scattered provinces to unite, to build, and to govern themselves rather than be drawn into American annexation.
Yes, the founders met. Yes, they debated. Yes, they agreed.
But above all: they got things done.
If you read the British North America Act, it is not a document of grand declarations or abstract ideals.
It is an instruction manual.
It sets out responsibilities.
It defines who does what.
Then they got to work doing. The cleared the path for the railway. They opened up the prairies fields to feed the nation. They built canals. And opened our nation to commerce between people and provinces.
That history is not distant or symbolic.
It is deeply relevant today.
You can watch the full speech below and the Toronto Sun posted the full video and the text of the speech and of course I wrote an analysis of the speech for the Sun.
Poilievre’s call for digital sovereignty…
There has been plenty of coverage of Poilievre’s call not to let the relationship between Canada and the United States rupture. His comments on China not being a suitable replacement for our trade and defence ties with the United States have been well covered as well.
There is so much to mine in this speech though, so many solid ideas, most of which won’t be covered.
His section of digital sovereignty is important to read.
Digital sovereignty
Finally we will only be truly self-reliant if we control our technologies. Dependence on externally controlled systems carries real risks. In a pandemic, a war, a natural disaster, or even a trade dispute, Canada cannot assume that foreign powers will maintain, service, or even permit the continued operation of critical technologies on which we depend.
And Canada has too often borne the costs of innovation while losing its rewards.
Subsidies make Canada an excellent place to lose money. High taxes make Canada a difficult place to make money. The result is predictable: firms invent here, then move commercialization, ownership, and profits elsewhere. Canada absorbs the cost. Others capture the benefit.
We are inventive. We invest heavily in research and development.
Now we must retain the benefits.
Canada must overhaul subsidies, tax policy, IP frameworks, and investment review laws with a goal of increasing the commercialization of Canadian-developed technologies by 50% over the next decade, ensuring that Canadian technology remains in Canadian hands, on Canadian soil, and under Canadian control.
That means:
1) Requiring anyone who offshores taxpayer-subsidized intellectual property to repay the public contribution.
2) Allowing venture capitalists to rollover their gains tax-free into developing, commercializing and deploying this technology IN CANADA.
3) And banning foreign takeovers of sensitive intellectual property, data, weapons systems, cryptography and other vital tools of survival in modern crises.
All of this–bolstering technological, resource and military sovereignty–will make Canada Stronger at Home to have leverage to fight for tariff-free trade with the U.S.
His thoughts on how subsidies and finance of developing technologies is important but the part that struck me was this part.
Subsidies make Canada an excellent place to lose money. High taxes make Canada a difficult place to make money. The result is predictable: firms invent here, then move commercialization, ownership, and profits elsewhere. Canada absorbs the cost. Others capture the benefit.
This is 100% accurate.
The reason is, we don’t support or reward innovation anymore.
We saw the results of this earlier this year when Y Combinator, a major tech based venture capital firm stopped offering investment in Canada. They eventually restarted after a backlash, but let’s just say Canada isn’t at the top of their list for places to invest.
We need to change that, and Poilievre is laying out a path for doing so.
Did the speech change anything for you…
Most readers here are supportive of Poilievre and the Conservatives, that much I know. After watching his speech or seeing coverage of it though, what are your thoughts.
Is he hitting the mark?
Is this the right path?
Is this too little too late?
Will this help change the minds of people you know who haven’t supported him?
Take the poll below, but also leave a comment.
What a different situation we would be in had Canadians voted Conservative.
It must have been a good speech. CBC is ignoring it. They are completely absorbed by Carney seeking MOUs of dubious value in India.