September 6, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
“It's time for all good pundits to offer previews of Parliament’s return.” So wrote Paul Wells in his Substack this week. His three decades of journalistic experience certainly qualify him as a leading Canadian political pundit. So, I’ll take him up on his challenge. When Parliament resumes sitting on September 15, the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney will face its most crucial test to date—a test that will largely be a battle of words both spoken and unspoken.
In the background, we have the full range of political issues that have captured public attention: Canada’s trade negotiations, macro-economic questions that will determine the length and depth of the current recession, and what will come of the various promised initiatives to enhance Canada's competitiveness. Non-partisans are less concerned about whether our elbows are up or down than they are about when pens will be put to paper and deals are signed rather than just discussed.
Some aspects of Prime Minister Carney’s task seem similar to that of a CEO. He’s running a complex operation and making decisions regarding whom to deal with and under what terms. With that in mind, we might consider the upcoming Parliamentary sitting a sort of shareholders' meeting which will evaluate the executive team’s activities. Some of the shareholders, especially those sympathetic to the opposition Conservatives, are coming to Parliament with a view that the Carney government is conducting itself under a pretense. The promised July 1 deadline for an internal free trade agreement and August 1 for a trade deal with the United States have come and gone. And while the Carney government seems focused on these big picture processes, the everyday issues of affordability, crime, and security continue with seemingly little attention from the government.
The focal point of the fall sitting is likely to be the promised October budget. Expectations are that it will provide timelines for government spending on its infrastructure, defence, and housing promises, as well as how it will pay for them through the promised spending reductions. There are indications that a package of crime and security reforms is forthcoming alongside some online privacy and data governance bills that were introduced in the spring. Private members' bills, including Bill C-218 seeking to halt the planned 2027 expansion of MAiD for mental illness, are also on the docket.
And on all of that legislation, there will be plenty of debate. After all, debate and words are Parliament’s primary currency. Even the English word Parliament originates from the French word parler—to speak. On a typical Tuesday (the busiest day for Parliament and its committees), over 100,000 words from official sessions in the House of Commons and Senate are transcribed into records. Few expect the forthcoming rhetoric to rival the legendary orations of Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker, and Pierre Trudeau (among others), who left their mark on Canadian history with their debating skills. The public used to line up for gallery seats to watch the action. Televised sittings make that unnecessary today, but increased accessibility has not translated into increased gravitas. Most of the current banter in the House involves words chosen to impress, using the House as a studio to record social media clips aimed at going viral. Lofty ideas are reduced to bumper-sticker slogans. Quick-witted heckling has always been part of the game, but the guardrails of mutual respect seem to have disappeared. Today, a good deal of House time seems dedicated to depressing the opponent’s polling numbers with repetitive negative branding.
Political chatter notwithstanding, don’t expect that Mr. Carney’s minority government will fall any time soon. Assuming competent House management on the part of the Liberals (which is not a given—some of us are old enough to remember the 1979 Joe Clark minority government blundering its way into an unexpected election just months after taking office), the politics of the fall are focused on the longer term. Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre is banking on the failure of the banker-turned-prime minister to deliver on the big-picture trade and infrastructure initiatives in a way that will avoid hard times for the ordinary citizen, who will then face the pocketbook impact of our current economic challenges. The timeline for Mr. Poilievre, whose job as opposition leader is to provide an alternative government for Canadians to consider whenever the next election might be, is measured by years, not months. His words this fall will be focused on planting seeds with an electoral harvest in late 2026 or early 2027 in mind, leaving Mr. Carney to sweat the details of the immediate challenges. Mr. Poilievre will highlight every shortcoming and will try to portray himself as having a greater capacity to deliver on a better plan.
Perhaps one of the most significant factors in previewing the upcoming Parliament is the words that will not be spoken. The NDP has only seven seats and therefore is not a recognized political party in Parliament. It is just beginning its leadership race and has no notable personalities around which to rally. The party’s parliamentary voice will be mostly muted. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois is also present but the Quebec provincial election will dominate on the issues that matter most to its MPs, a subject that deserves its own attention in another column.
So, do words in parliament matter? Most would rather have their opinions heard and implemented than just spoken and ignored, but when significant public perspectives do not find their way into political conversations, the results are almost always negative. Most people understand that in a democracy, minority opinions will not always be reflected in policy. However, those perspectives still need expression or acknowledgement, or else they will find means of expression outside of the regular political process. Disruptive protests, radicalized alternative media that serve a narrow niche of people, and sometimes unlawful behaviour can all result from a political system that does not hear and respect dissident voices.
I am not saying that progressive perspectives do not have any public forums to express themselves even if their speaking time in Parliament has shrunk. My own political perspectives are generally not described as left-wing. Still, I recognize that a significant portion of my fellow citizens—up to 15 percent—are principled progressives in their political outlook and have historically identified as NDP supporters. Keep in mind that federal NDP support has hovered in the 15-20 percent range over the past five decades. My guess is that half of them voted Liberal in 2025, believing Mr. Carney to be best to stand up to US President Donald Trump. But what happens over the next few years, starting with this fall sitting, when specific projects get announced that progressives (including some Liberals) thought unimaginable just a year ago? This is a crowd accustomed to hearing their voices in Parliament. Will they end up protesting the specific projects in ways that make the construction difficult? Will this (and similar left-wing priorities) catalyze a renewal of support for the NDP?
This fall will start the planting of seeds, which will be a significant factor in determining the nature of the next federal election. Without the NDP, the race outside Quebec (where the Bloc Québécois creates a different dynamic) will be a two-way race for government between the Conservatives and Liberals. This means popular support in the mid-forties will likely be required to form a government. If the NDP raises its level of support by even just five percent to the low double digits, the threshold for the Conservatives to form government falls to the low forties, which is the level of support they achieved in 2025. The size of the voter coalition the Conservatives need to build depends on what happens on the progressive side of the spectrum.
In response to Paul Wells’ challenge to offer a preview of the fall Parliament, I say first pay attention to what is not being said. The first variable is what the Carney government does, not says. Mr. Carney won his first election on his resume as a banker and leader; his second election will be fought on his resume as a prime minister. The story of the fall sitting will set in motion the narrative that will define politics in the years to come.
If there is inadequate action, listen for the words in response from the opposition Conservatives, whose job it is to provide an alternative to the government. But if there is action of the sort that challenges progressive political sensibilities, watching how that voting segment responds will be equally significant to how our politics will unfold.
We are about to hear millions of parliamentary words spoken about the hundreds of billions of dollars that will be spent and traded. However, the words not spoken may matter just as much as the words that are in shaping Canadian politics.
WHAT I’M READING
Quebec’s Government Hasn’t Got a Prayer
Globe and Mail columnist Robyn Urback used her typical sharp wit to undercut the Quebec government’s musings about banning public prayer. Many in Quebec are justly up in arms over obtrusive and intimidating Muslim prayers outside Montreal’s Notre-Dame Basilica to protest the war in Gaza. So, Premier François Legault has suggested it’s time to ban all public prayer—and a recent report on Quebec secularism has loudly backed that idea. But does the province really need a new law? Urback argues that banning public prayer is like “banning the sale of spray paint across the province in order to stop graffiti.” Rather than creating a new law, she wisely asks, why not simply enforce existing bylaws when protesters block roads or make excessive noise?
A Different Approach to Health Care
Universal health care with no wait times—that’s the claim, at least, of Japan’s health-care system. It would seem that allowing private clinics (even for surgeries) as Japan has done, has allowed market forces to create new care options to meet patients’ needs, quite the opposite of Canada’s approach of centrally controlled care. Small user fees and a heavy government emphasis on promoting wellness (lessening the demand for health care) also seem to be distinct Japanese approaches when compared to the long health care wait lists that are the norm in Canada.
Competing with Sleep
I heard the claim in a recent meeting that Netflix considers sleep its greatest competitor. Caught off guard, I decided to search to see if the claim was true. I found this 2017 article in The Guardian quoting Netflix’s chief executive saying, “You know, think about it, when you watch a show from Netflix and you get addicted to it, you stay up late at night. We’re competing with sleep, on the margin. And so, it’s a very large pool of time.”
Clipping the Managerial Class’s Wings
Do professional associations and regulatory bodies need to re-learn the value of free speech? For years now, news reports have highlighted how these organizations have used their powers to restrict the free speech of their members. The current case of BC Nurse Amy Hamm is only the latest example. Lawyer Lisa Bildy’s column highlights the historical importance of dissidents speaking up against the prevailing wisdom of the day. Bildy also makes the case for adjusting the powers of regulatory bodies in this area.
When Anti-Semitism Shows Up in the Grocery Store
Michael Geist is a go-to source for informed commentary on media and privacy policies, but he wrote on a different topic in the Globe and Mail this week. Highlighting the impact of a Jewish woman being knifed in a grocery store, Geist offers a stark reminder of Canada’s social decline. He points out the failure of our leaders to address anti-semitic words and ideas that have become increasingly prevalent in recent years. I share his concern and would note that it is incumbent not only on our political leaders but also on religious leaders to call out these dangerous ideologies when they arise within our communities. Christians have a particular responsibility to do so, given our commitment to the reality that every person is made in the image of God.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
John Burn-Murdoch, a Financial Times columnist, posted this graph on X along with a thread musing about the implications of a left-leaning political ideology correlating with having fewer children. He notes that progressive politics tends to consider birth rates a conservative concern, prioritizing instead individual choice and concern for the environment. This, he argues, reinforces their impulse to lower the importance of having children. Low birth rates skew demographics to an older population which generally results in less innovation as well as greater social needs and taxes, he notes. While the tendency of children inheriting their parents’ politics isn’t absolute, Murdoch suggests the progressive trend toward fewer children may at least be in part responsible for the rightward shift in global politics of late.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Ruby is fine after her recent adventure. Firefighters in central England came to the rescue of the 1,700-pound Belgian draught horse this week after she got through a fence and trotted right into a bog, according to United Press International. (As an aside, my preferred Belgian draught comes in a glass, but let’s not get bogged down here.) In any case, I was glad to read that a vet gave the wayward horse a check-up and she is fine. Asked whether she had any injuries, Ruby apparently said, “Neigh, but I am a little hoarse.” I must say, though, at 1,700 pounds, Ruby is anything but little.
Insights will be back in your inbox again next week.