Prime Minister Mark Carney’s 2026 Davos speech has to date been praised by many prominent Liberal supporters across Canada, and the adulation just keeps on coming. CTV political commentator Scott Reid is the archetype for this manufactured brand of zealotry. Reid recently penned an anti-American diatribe for iPolitics, to convince readers Carney should be lauded for what is essentially just more World Economic Forum (WEF) windbaggery. “Carney’s speech is indisputably the most important international address any Canadian prime minister has provided in decades,” Reid crowed. “His words will be echoed by other world leaders. His analysis is already becoming orthodoxy.”.AYAN: The Shah's forgotten warning — and why it matters today.Woah! Hold on a moment. The importance of Carney’s speech is very disputable. I believe his words are nothing but refried leftovers, just as his “new world order” — the one he officially declared during his visit to China — is rehashed ideological claptrap. In spite of Reid’s high praise, Carney’s proclamations of a “new world order” and the death of the “old order” were globalist orthodoxy long before Carney uttered them. Many leftists just refused to listen..Remember, for instance, how Justin Ling, one of Canada’s more popular far-left journalists, derided talk of the WEF and a new world order as right-wing conspiracy theories? He made that accusation explicit in a 2022 CBC interview.“Since the start of the pandemic,” Ling argued, “it has been the right that has focused on the Forum as being this sort of enabler of the ‘new world order’, of being an organization that is hellbent on destroying capitalism.”Anyone who has read about the WEF knows that Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism theoretically provides the government far too much control over industry. It is therefore much closer to China’s socialist market economy than it is to a free market..OLDCORN: Ottawa’s $50 million taxpayer-funded ‘climate change’ lobby machine.So why exactly is Carney’s speech nothing new? Why is it as indigestion-inducing as refried beans? Isn’t it, as Carney harps, a “rupture” that the US is departing from leading the rules-based international order?Actually, this has been anticipated for some time. It’s disingenuous to slap it all onto Trump or even the US.It was Russia who definitively bucked the rules-based international order with the invasion of Ukraine. Although there were vast channels of subterfuge before that reckoning occurred, which demonstrated the superpowers were always playing by their own rules..While in his speech Carney mentioned problems associated with “extreme global integration”, including “supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited”, he praised China for engaging in a “new strategic partnership” with Canada. Not once did he name Russia. Instead, he further antagonized the “hegemon” US, when it would have been far more honest to name all the names. That would have really been taking the sign out of the window, Mr. Prime Minister.But no. You’re not doing that. .HANNAFORD: My bet, back to the polls in spring.And that’s the biggest problem with Carney’s speech.Carney’s “rupture” was first torn by China, a country that has subtly abused globalization and economic integration since they were first admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. It was the Liberal Party of Canada under Jean Chrétien who were key facilitators of China’s acceptance into the WTO, believing the Western world would economically benefit. Even then, the Liberals had the politically evangelical idea of developing the rule of law and human rights in China as a noble quid-pro-quo for their efforts.."WTO accession is part of China's broad agenda of developing the rule of law, to ensure fair and equal treatment before the courts for both people and companies," said Chrétien in 2001.Then in 2017, Justin Trudeau and several Liberal MPs visited Beijing in an attempt to land a free trade deal. But there were once again noble strings attached by Canada’s federal government. There was a stipulation of seeing human rights and Western values come to China. Trudeau and his push for human rights were completely ignored by Xi Jinping. No deal was achieved..CUSANELLI: Canadians deserve truth, not another sign in the window.Where will Mark Carney and the latest Liberal sortie into China land us? According to his new “values-based realism,” revealed in his Davos speech, Carney isn’t trying to push foreign values onto China, like Chrétien or Trudeau did. He’s just trying to make a deal, while keeping Canada a values-based nation that maintains its own scruples. Does that “values-based realism” keep Canada safe, though?Carney’s deal with China is not promising from a national security perspective..The 49,000 EVs Carney has allowed China to export to Canada this year could hide enough spyware to render our national security entirely compromised. Perhaps, like Israel’s weaponization of pagers against Hezbollah, those Chinese EVs could be used for far more destructive purposes. Have you ever seen one go up in flames?What Carney’s really doing is taking a huge risk with our sovereignty because he’s disappointed that the artifice he once operated under no longer exists. But the world order will continue to exist, just with a less frequently participating and more self-centred US. Carney should stop trying to blame the US for working to maintain its own sovereignty and realize they are still our best bet for long-term stability. Instead, he’s created a speech to soothe leftists and global elites that everything will be okay. “Middle powers” can still conduct trade. .MCCOURT: No-fault auto insurance? Oh, hail no, Nate Horner!.Economically, he’s hedging and insuring, and he can make a serious argument for a path forward. Militarily, he’s leaving Canada wide open, as so many Liberal governments have in the past, to be exploited by those countries who do not hold Western values. Carney’s new world order is very similar to the previous one, with only minor changes and sanctions against Russia. If the big players never really followed the old order, as Carney states, then what’s the big deal that they are overtly not participating now? It’s the same thing, isn’t it?
